Sitting of 14 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 Monday 20 November.
    ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)
    HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON) WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)
    NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)
    CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)
    Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.
    To be considered on Monday 20 November.
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    As amended, further considered.
    Amendments agreed to.
    To be read the Third time.
    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
    BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)
    BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Monday 20 November.
    VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Monday 20 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 Wednesday 15 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 he 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 he 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 Wednesday 15 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);

  163
  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 Monday 20 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 Monday 20 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
  164
  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 Monday 20 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 Monday 20 November.

  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;

  165
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill' in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Monday 20 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 Monday 20 November.

  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
  166
  Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Monday 20 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 Monday 20 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Student Loans
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Eduation and Science if he has any meeting arranged with Scottish university principals to discuss the effect of student loans on Scottish four-year degree courses.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): No, Sir. The choice to undertake a course involving four years of study, in Scotland or elsewhere, necessarily involves a mix of economic and educational considerations. I do not expect the provision of additional support in the form of a loan to affect students' approach to that decision.
    Mr. Salmond: The Minister must be aware that figures from within the Government's White Paper show that the cost to students in terms of the outstanding debt in opting for a four-year course, with current rates of inflation, will be 60 per cent. greater than for students taking a three-year course. Does that not represent a substantial disincentive to entering a four-year honours degree in Scotland? Does it not mean that the scheme is a fundamental attack on Scottish education itself?
    Mr. Jackson: There must be something wrong with the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. If he were to study under the national curriculum, perhaps it would be improved. Courses of all lengths are available in higher education in England, Scotland, Wales and around the world in countries where there are student loan schemes. Other countries have not found it necessary to introduce differential arrangements for different sorts of students. We have said that we are prepared to consider extending the repayment period in relation to the size of the borrowing. That sort of arrangement is common where student loans exist.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the major commercial banks have now agreed to join the student loan scheme and that he is not having second thoughts about removing students from the welfare system?
    Mr. Jackson: I can reassure my hon. Friend on the second point: we are not having second thoughts about it. On the first point, a question later on the Order Paper will be answered by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister fails to understand the significance of this for students who attend universities in Scotland. They include not only Scottish students, but a number of English, Welsh and Irish students, too. The four-year course in Scotland is much easier for students and produces much more academically qualified graduates. The extension of the loan period will in no way encourage students to come to Scotland or the students in Scotland to take up further education.
    The Minister must look into this again—it is impinging on Scottish universities.
    Mr. Jackson: Scottish degree courses last for four years instead of three because of the difference between Scottish Highers and A-levels. One quarter of all students in
    168
    Scottish universities come with A-levels from England and Wales and are attracted to Scotland by the quality of education offered there. I believe that they will continue to be so attracted, the introduction of student loans notwithstanding.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, demonstrate the worth of the four-year Scottish degree? Does he also agree that those who take part in such degree courses earn much higher incomes afterwards than they would otherwise have done, so is it not right that they should pay something back to society for those higher incomes?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One curiosity of the arguments that we sometimes hear against student loans is that they are premised on an assumption that the value of higher education to the people who go through it is so low that any element of repayment will deter them. That implies that higher education is of zero value to those who benefit from it, and that I cannot believe.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the expansion of the city technology college programme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): Three CTCs are up and running and firm starting dates in 1990 and 1991 have been announced for a further eight colleges. We shall continue to build, with sponsors, on this excellent foundation.
    Mr. Skinner: It is to be hoped that the Government will build in a better fashion than they have so far. When the previous Secretary of State announced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—the city technology colleges, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said that all or most of the money would come from private funds? Yet of the £19·3 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—I have asked a question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked, "Is the Minister aware?"
    Mr. Skinner: To satisfy the House, I will say it again. Is the Minister aware that of the £19·3 million that has been spent, £16 million has come from public funds? If the Government have that sort of money to throw around, why not spend it on Bolsover schools and make sure that the little infant school in South Normanton has running water laid on for the toddlers? That is what they should do with the money.
    Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have concluded that the more than £40 million already raised from sponsors—[HON. MEMBERS: "Raised?"]—already raised and pledged by sponsors for this exciting innovation—was a considerable achievement in a short space of time. He should be grateful to the sponsors who are adding to the Government funding for this exciting new scheme. It has many advantages of innovation, for inner-city areas and of improving the technology curricula. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would regard that as a success.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I, too, am concerned about the expansion of city technology colleges, although perhaps not in the same way as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? My concern is that there are not enough of them and that they are not coming on stream quickly enough—
    Hon. Members: Question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The rules apply to both sides.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we should do more to speed up the building and introduction of these schools? What measures will he take to ensure that we produce more than 20 CTCs in the least possible time?
    Mr. MacGregor: Twenty remains the target and the pace at which it is realistic and practical to move must be taken into account. Nevertheless, I should have thought that getting three schools up and running within three years, and the gathering of more than £40 million of private sponsorship, represents a considerable achievement.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that Tory-controlled county councils are protesting vehemently at having to enforce cuts in their education budgets in the coming year and given the massive demand for expenditure on teachers' salaries to restore the morale of the profession, will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no announcement tomorrow of increased capital funding of CTCs? Since the original plan is a failure, with the Government having to put up 80 per cent. rather than 20 per cent. of the money, may we have a stop to this separatist and elitist expenditure at the expense of the country's general education?
    Mr. MacGregor: I cannot announce in advance what will be said tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the scheme is a failure given that, for example, Kingshurst CTC had more than 1,200 applications for 180 places, Nottingham had more than 300 applications for 180 places and Sylvan has already had more than 480 applications for 180 places. All that shows a clear demand from parents for those schools, which cannot be regarded as a failure. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have increased the revenue support grants and spending assessments by a considerable sum compared with their equivalents last year, so there has been a considerable increase in local authorities' current spending on education in general.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the CTC concept is so good, attractive and necessary that all hon. Members should be taking steps to have one set up in their communities? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing to stop local education authorities setting up CTC-style schools if they wish to do so?
    Mr. MacGregor: Some local education authorities are putting forward interesting ideas and I shall encourage them to continue to explore that thought. I should like more sponsors to come forward, but it is remarkable that we have already achieved more than £40 million. But the more sponsors that we have, the better pleased I shall be.
    Mr. Fatchett: Is it not true that the CTC scheme has failed to attract private sponsorship and that that is why only £3 million of private money has been invested? Why did the Minister of State have to write to the Conservative
    170
    leader of Lincolnshire county council on 14 September saying that the Government and the CTC trust were unable to attract private sector support for a CTC in Lincoln? Is that a sign of the attractiveness and success of the scheme, or is it just a sign of the Government's further failure to attract private funding?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not see how the pledging of more than £40 million of sponsorship can be regarded as a failure. That is one of the largest examples of giving by the private sector to education for a long time, so I do not know how it can be regarded as a failure. With regard to Lincoln, one of the relevant points is that CTCs are meant to be directed at inner-city areas, and that is where we have been concentrating.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the proposed establishment of a city technology college in Telford.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I have received 14 letters following the announcement by the Mercers Company of its intention to sponsor a CTC in Telford.
    Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to publicise the fact that CTCs are not designed only for academically gifted children, and that children hoping to take A-level courses and go on to polytechnics or universities would do best to continue attending existing secondary schools? There will thus be no creaming-off from those schools.
    Will my hon. Friend also take this opportunity to assure the House that further consultation will take place before the catchment area for the CTC in Telford is drawn up?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As was clearly announced, the CTC initiative has always been intended to cover children of all abilities, directing its efforts particularly towards children who may need more technological education. We hope that A-level courses will feature as much as any other course. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering catchment areas wider than those applying to ordinary local comprehensives.
    Mr. Grocott: Is the Minister aware that I have received numerous representations concerning the proposed Telford CTC? I have them all here—the Minister is welcome to read them—and they are all against the proposal.
    Is the Minister further aware that those objections have come not only from parents, teachers, pupils and school governors, but from churches, parish and district councils—Conservative and Labour—and the county council? Is it not time that she accepted the overwhelming evidence that the scheme would cause major disruption to the secondary school system which less than two years ago was approved by the Secretary of State's predecessor, and is it not time that it was scrapped?
    Mrs. Rumbold: No, Sir. I understand that the sponsor, the Mercers Company, is looking carefully at all the responses that it has received from the local population—including the local education authority, head teachers and others—and that those responses will eventually be recorded and taken fully into account.

    School Transport
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to review the regulations on payment of the costs of school transport.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): My right hon. Friend has no such plans.
    Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that the discretion to pay or not to pay the costs of a pupil's transport to and from a secondary school is being manipulated by some local authorities to inhibit parents' free choice of school? Will he ensure that that practice ceases, and will he say in particular what steps he will take to prevent it from interfering with the success of the policy of open enrolment?
    Mr. Howarth: I am not aware of any examples of such deliberate manipulation by local education authorities, but if my hon. Friend can give me written evidence I shall take it very seriously and look into the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attaches great importance to parental freedom of choice, and looks to local education authorities to do all that they reasonably can to facilitate such choice.
    Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be perfectly all right for any empty places on school buses to be filled by pupils from grant-maintained schools? Does he agree that certain local education authorities should stop obstructing grant-maintained schools on school transport matters?
    Mr. Howarth: I very much hope that local education authorities will fully support the spirit of extending freedom of parental choice, which is an important part of the Education Reform Act 1988, and that they will act reasonably and generously when they feel able to do so.

    History
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teaching of history within the national curriculum.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales are awaiting the final report of the national curriculum history working group, which they expect to receive by the end of the year. They will then publish their proposals for the history curriculum.
    Mr. Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the interim report of the working group was greeted with shock and dismay by the many who believe that the causes and history of the second world war should be part of the national curriculum? After all, 1940 was our finest hour; why is it too fine for the history mandarins?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposals of the interim working group have been looked at again by the history working group, and that the final proposals will contain full programmes of study on all the units, so that such matters can be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister explain her previous answer? Does this mean that the national curriculum will contain the rise and fall of Nazism and the second world war?
    Mrs. Rumbold: As I understand it, yes.
    Sir John Stokes: Why cannot children be taught about England's heroes instead of vague subjects such as social trends?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's question. In our view, the facts of British history—the social, cultural and economic status of our history—are absolutely essential for all children who are studying the subject.
    Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the history syllabus is balanced, or shall we once again see the spectacle of education Ministers being rolled over by the Prime Minister and the advisers in the No. 10 policy unit who wish to turn the history syllabus into no more than a vehicle for the jingoistic, Right-wing indoctrination of our children?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is almost beneath the dignity of the Dispatch Box to answer that question. The history working group is advising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The National Curriculum Council will be looking at that advice. When the council has fully consulted on the report of the history working group, my right hon. Friend will take advice from the National Curriculum Council. Balanced history will, of course, be taught in our schools.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that the current trend among Caribbean parents to send their children back to the parents' countries of origin for a decent education will no longer be necessary when the national curriculum, including the first-class teaching of genuine history, is in place?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am very much aware of that. That is exactly the purpose of having the national curriculum and of introducing sensible history teaching in our schools.

    School Records
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he gives to local education authorities about the rights of parents to see the school records of their children.
    Mrs. Rumbold: In July my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State laid before the House regulations governing the keeping, disclosure and transfer of schools' manually held records on pupils. At the same time, the Department issued to local education authorities a circular describing the effect of these regulations.
    Mr. Lloyd: I am genuinely grateful for the Minister's answer. In the context of the Conservative-controlled Trafford council, whose education committee recently reaffirmed its decision to keep secret and to prevent parents from having access to information relating to 11-plus testing will she confirm that such information will have to be made available under the Department's recently issued guidelines?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot add to the answer that the hon. Gentleman received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in his recent reply on that matter. From the date when the new regulation comes into effect, manually held records in schools will be made available to parents. Those records may include the information to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern felt by many hon. Members that although initiatives such as pupil profiling, records of achievement and assessment under the national curriculum have improved the quality of the information available to parents on pupils' progress, too often it is inadequately communicated by schools to parents? Will the Government look into the possibility of making written school reports at least twice a year mandatory on all schools, thus improving the relationship between teachers and parents, upon which good education depends?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government are committed to ensuring that sensible records of achievement by children are given to parents. Information should be given not just on their academic achievements but on their other activities in school, including community work and other matters that are of interest in the context of the school curriculum.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that Parliament originally gave powers for the regulations to be made nine years ago? It has taken nine years for the regulations to be made and they refer only to information which is compiled after the date of the regulations and not to information about pupils that is already held. Should it not be possible for parents to see information about their children that has been held in the past few years?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The circular relates to the future—to 1990—but local education authorities are governed by the Data Protection Act 1984 and much of the information is kept on computer.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance is offered by his Department to schools on making special provision for educating children in the dangers of drug abuse.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Schools are required to teach children about the harmful effects of drugs by the national curriculum science order. The Department has published "Drug Misuse and the Young", a booklet of guidance for teachers, and has funded the development of curriculum materials for use in schools. We also provide grant support for local authorities' drugs education activities.
    Mr. Taylor: With the sickening evidence of the disaster that drug taking is causing in American schools, particularly with regard to crack, to which addiction can be almost instantaneous, will my hon. Friend provide even more guidance and resources to primary and secondary school teachers in Britain so that we can nip drug addiction in the bud?
    Mr. Howarth: The Department has issued in bulk copies of a fact sheet on crack, with space for local information to be overprinted, to all drug education co-ordinators. It is for them to make a judgment about the
    174
    appropriate use of the material in local circumstances. We believe that campaigns and shock-horror approaches are likely to prove counter-productive and that the right approach is to provide education about drugs in the general context of health education which stresses the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and helps equip young people with the skills that they need to resist the pressures to abuse drugs and alcohol.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister accept that it is a very serious problem and that if we learn from the mistakes of the American Government, surely we must consider the possibility of establishing a drugs helpline with telephone numbers publicised in our schools and colleges? That would enable children and young people to telephone the helpline and would make the authorities aware of the extent and the amount of drugs in a particular locality, enabling them to target the resources where they are most needed.
    Mr. Howarth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of monitoring the situation on the ground and providing the ready recourse to help and expert advice that he advocates. That is one possibility which I very much hope local education authorities will consider and which drugs education co-ordinators will have very much in mind. It is an example of information that could be overprinted on the fact sheet about crack that is being made widely available.
    Mr. Rathbone: While welcoming my hon. Friend's answer and endorsing the Government's efforts to improve drug and health education in schools, will my hon. Friend pay further attention to the efforts of the Life education centres which were founded in Australia by the Rev. Ted Notts and which have done such a marvellous job? Does he agree that they could be adapted for use in this country to a much greater degree than hitherto?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there has been Government contact with Life education centres in a number of Departments. I plan to make direct contact with them.

    Testing
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will announce plans for testing at seven years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: The first statutory assessments of pupils at the end of key stage 1 will be in summer 1991—in English, mathematics and science. The arrangements will be set out in orders under section 4(2)(c) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Drafts of those orders will be published next spring.
    Mr. Thompson: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to read correspondence from headteachers of first schools in Northumberland that has been sent to him in the past two weeks complaining about the fact that they are understaffed, under-resourced, underpaid and cannot cope with the introduction of the national curriculum and local management of schools and now, superimposed on that, a testing system? Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better to drop the whole idea?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the correspondence, and my hon. Friends and I will respond to it. I am

    175
    sympathetic with the point about the heavy amount of work caused by the introduction of the national curriculum. I am keen to ensure, so far as I possibly can, that its phasing in is compatible with schools coping with it. The national curriculum reforms have been widely welcomed, and we do not want to lose the momentum of that progress. I therefore do not accept that we should delay the programme for the standard assessment tasks, which is a crucial part of the curriculum.
    Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend make the assessments for seven-year-olds available to local authorities as soon as possible? He will no doubt be aware that in local authorities such as those in Lancashire, statements of educational needs are being supplied desperately slowly to parents because of inadequate resources from psychologists and because of lack of information from schools. In ensuring that assessments for seven-year-olds are readily available, will he speed up that process?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that the draft orders for seven-year-olds' assessments will be published next spring. I am aware that teachers are keen to know more about what the standard assessment tasks will consist of. That is not the point that my hon. Friend made, but it is the point about which most teachers are concerned. The Schools Examination and Assessment Council will publish training packs to help primary teachers early in the new year. It is important, however, that teachers should recognise that the first trial of the standard assessment tasks in 1991 will not be reported. The first reported year will therefore be 1992. Clearly, there is time to get this right, and I am anxious to get on with it.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that teachers are concerned about their ability to teach the curriculum without knowing how it will be tested? Receiving test information nine months after the curriculum has started is not good enough. Will he assure hon. Members that the seven-year-olds' tasks will be assessments and not standard written tests, for which the Prime Minister has been asking?
    Mr. MacGregor: Everyone was keen to get on with the national curriculum, but that inevitably means that everything must be done in an ordered programme. The standard assessment tasks will not take effect until the 1991 trial. I fully recognise teachers' desire to know what those tasks will be, which is why I am keen to get the training packs out early in the new year. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to desist from having private conversations.

    School Transport
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that local authority school transport plans are not restricting parental choice of school.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In December 1981, the Department issued a circular letter to all local education authorities on the relationship between school transport and choice of school. That advice is still current. A copy is in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my hon. Friend aware that sometimes the boundaries of catchment areas seem to be arbitrary and that it is possible for local authorities to deny free school transport by the simple expedient of not having a catchment area? Will he therefore undertake to review the present guidelines to ensure that no unfair discrimination is taking place?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has raised a particular case on behalf of his constituents, on which we are consulting the local education authority and which I shall consider very carefully. The Education Reform Act 1988 did not alter the duties and powers of local education authorities in relation to school transport, but we are most anxious to ensure that local education authorities, wherever they can, give parents practical support so that they can exercise an effective right of choice. As my hon. Friend asked, I shall keep the matter carefully under review.
    Mr. Key: I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that as winter sets in the choice of parents is restricted not only by finance but by safety. I welcome the change in the law made by the Education Reform Act, but will he consider further extending the experiment by offering an education grant to local education authorities and schools under local management systems for schools to fund bus services, particularly in local areas, so that when they are not being used by pupils they can be used for the benefit of the community?
    Mr. Howarth: I shall certainly reflect carefully on my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will be aware that the Education (No.2) Act 1986 requires that authorities should have regard to, among other matters, the age of the pupil and the nature of the route or alternative routes that he or she could reasonably be expected to take. That provision clearly asks authorities to have particular regard for safety.

    Higher Education (Funding)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council on the question of funding higher education.
    Mr. Jackson: This is one of the matters dealt with in the discussions we have from time to time with the funding council.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that Cumbria, especially west Cumbria, is exporting a high number of students for higher education to all parts of the United Kingdom? Will the hon. Gentleman lend his support to the provision for a far greater level of higher education within the county and, if necessary, lend his support to the establishment of a polytechnic if the demand for one is clearly established?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government's intention is that there should be an expansion of higher education. The questions of how and where this should occur need to be considered further. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's proposal for Cumbria will be given serious consideration.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm his expressed intention of doubling the number of students in higher education? Within how many years does he expect

    177
    to see that doubling? What proportion of that number are expected to go into polytechnics? Does my hon. Friend have any plans to create new polytechnics?
    Mr. Jackson: One of the Government's great achievements has been the increase of more than 25 per cent. in the number of students in higher education since we came to office—more than 200,000 students, a rise well above target. We know that because of the reduction in the number of 18-year-olds, we will find it difficult to do more than maintain student numbers in the 1990s. We expect a substantial increase in the demand for and supply of higher education as we go into the next century.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister now tell the House the answer to the question that he and the Secretary of State so miserably failed to answer during the student loan debates? How will the Government pay for this commitment to double the numbers over the next 25 years? Will they choose the route of entitlement and increased public expenditure, or will they take the path of privilege and introduce private tuition fees?
    Mr. Jackson: It is the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party that have to answer the question about how they would pay for their proposals. The Government's answer is clear. We propose to introduce through the student loan a means to enable students to anticipate some of their income as graduates to help fund their higher education. That will enable an expansion of higher education to be funded.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the PCFC has had an increase in funding of more than 6 per cent., it has offered only 2·5 per cent. to the excellent St. Mary's college in Twickenham, whose lack of enthusiasm for the PCFC is shared by me?
    Mr. Jackson: I am looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his colleagues from his constituency later today when we can discuss the matter further. The way in which the PCFC allocates the resources provided by the Government is a matter for it.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the letters he has received about student loans have agreed in principle with his proposals.
    Mr. Jackson: Letters have expressed a variety of views on different aspects of our proposals. Many support the underlying principle that students in higher education should contribute to their costs.
    Mr. Strang: Has the Minister seen the survey by Dr. Burnhill of Edinburgh university which suggests that for every student from a professional middle-class home who will be deterred by a system of student loans, five students from manual working-class homes will be discouraged? Is not that the experience of Sweden? Should not we be taking action to increase the number of students from working-class homes who, go on to higher education, rather than the opposite?
    Mr. Jackson: I entirely agree, but that is not the experience of student loan schemes overseas. That experience shows that such schemes are compatible with
    178
    higher rates of participation by students from working-class backgrounds than we have achieved in 30 years of the most generous grants system in the world.
    Mr. Rhodes James: How does the Minister equate the Government's proposals with the 1987 Conservative manifesto?
    Mr. Jackson: I have no doubt that the Government's proposals are readily reconcilable with those in the Conservative manifesto, which said that there should be an expansion of higher education. This is a means of assisting with that. We should remember the words of the Robbins report in 1960 which said that
    "the arguments of justice in distribution and of the advantage of increasing individual responsibility"
    pointed towards the eventual introduction of student loans.
    Mr. Straw: Can the Minister explain why there is an item on the tapes now that the Government have agreed a system with the banks regarding the student loan scheme? Why has no statement been made to the House today? Is the Minister aware that the banks themselves are now disowning the scheme? Lord Alexander of Weedon, chairman of the National Westminster bank has just written to me on behalf of NatWest to say:
    "We are in no sense promoting or supporting the introduction of the legislation on student loans".
    Will the Minister comment on the fact that NatWest has now abandoned its support for the scheme?
    Mr. Jackson: All the way through, our discussions have been punctuated by speculation about the attitude of the banks. Let us wait to see what it will be.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Cook: Will the Prime Minister explain why it is necessary for her foremost energy adviser, the noble Lord Marshall of Goring to resign, when the Ministers responsible for so many mistakes have kept their positions under her patronage, or is this just another factor that she finds incomprehensible?
    The Prime Minister: Lord Marshall is considering his position in the light of the Government's decision. It is premature to speculate. It is a matter for the noble Lord.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the community charge is the fairest way to raise money? Does she deplore the new system that has been suggested by the Socialists—a combination of a property charge and income tax—which effectively means a snoopers' charter?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that the community charge is the fairest way to make a contribution to local authority expenditure. It gives generous rebates—more

    179
    generous than those given under the old rating system. I notice that the Opposition agree that rates are totally unfair, but that they have not been able to find a successful alternative which has not been blown out of the water before they have got very far with it.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that she encouraged right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House last night, when she declared that:
    "We must stretch out the hand of co-operation, and develop new forms of association with the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe"?
    Will she tell the House precisely what new ideas she has had to give substance to that fine declaration?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have trading agreements, through the Community, with some of those countries, for example, Hungary. We do not have an association agreement between the Community and those countries, as we have, for example, with Turkey. I thought then that it would be wise, as I thought that the countries of Eastern Europe would naturally wish to enhance their contacts with the West, to consider an association agreement between the Community and those countries.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer. Is the right hon. Lady aware that she was also correct to remind everyone last night that Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Leipzig and Dresden—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that she was also absolutely right last night to remind everyone that Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Dresden and Leipzig are great European cities—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes a great deal of time. [Interruption.] Order. At this rate, I shall be able to call few Back Bench Members.
    Mr. Kinnock: Should those great European cities—
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Name them.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister think that those great European cities should continue to be the target for short-range nuclear weapons?
    The Prime Minister: I pointed out over a year ago in the Bruges speech that Warsaw, Prague and Budapest were also part of Europe, and what a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not congratulate me on that. I do not believe that the events in eastern Europe would have taken place but for the staunchness of NATO. One could never rely on the Labour party to support NATO.
    Mr. Kinnock: To give some validity to what the Prime Minister is saying, will she tell us whether those great European cities should be the target of short-range nuclear weapons?
    The Prime Minister: We should stick by our agreements with NATO, which were signed by all NATO countries.
    Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of that great and noble man, the late General de Gaulle, that Europe runs from the Atlantic to the Urals?
    180
    Will she give the House an undertaking that she does not see the European Community as being fulfilled until it runs from the Atlantic to the Urals?
    The Prime Minister: The European Community is only one manifestation of the identity of Europe. There is a wider one and I do not think that we should confuse the two in any way. Most of us would now hope that democracy will soon run from the Atlantic up to the Chinese border at any rate and eventually beyond that.
    Mr. Ashdown: Why is it that in her bleak and visionless speech last night, the Prime Minister sought to return Europe to that uneasy balance of power between the nations which has twice done such damage to our continent this century? Why is it that while the rest of Europe is on a march to unity through closer integration, she is seeking to lead Britain into increasing isolation?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman speaks absolute nonsense. It has been the staunchness of NATO which has helped to see the birth of democracy in eastern Europe. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that our views have frequently prevailed in the Community and if he had looked at our record for getting down constraints in Europe, he would have found that we were way out ahead of many other nations in implementing the directives. I hope that he would also have agreed with what seemed to be the almost unanimous verdict in the House about a European monetary union of the kind proposed by Delors. It seems to me that stages 2 and 3 have been totally and utterly rejected by all parties in the House.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does not my right hon. Friend find it strange that Opposition Members, who played such an ignoble role in 1983 and 1984, at a time of great danger to the western world, should now be saying that they played some part in what has now been achieved as a result of what she and her colleagues did then?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that freedom would have come about or that there would have been the prospect of democracy in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union unless we had staunchly defended freedom through NATO, together with the essential part of the nuclear deterrent. As I pointed out in my speech last night, there was at one time a doctrine in the West that we had merely to contain Communism. After that, we put freedom on a peaceful offensive and it is partly that and partly defence that has led to the remarkable results that we now see in eastern Europe.
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of the continuing corruption of women and young people by British Telecom and its dubious associates, and Oftel's inability to do anything about it by means of regulations, could I offer the Prime Minister a deal? If I bring to the House an amendment to the Telecommunications Act 1984, will she instruct her Chief Whip to find parliamentary time for it while I provide a majority to bring it into force?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the substantive part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he knows that I would not interfere with the duties of Whips. [Interruption.] I

    181
    could wish that Opposition Members had more respect for the authority of their Whips on some occasions. It would greatly assist parliamentary business. Sir Bryan Carsberg, the Director General of Telecommunications has announced plans for closer control over premium rate services. He intends to introduce the new controls on 8 December, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman's help will not be required.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the comments by the president of the Bundesbank in support of her view on the advantages of competition between the 12 European state currencies? Has she thought of discussing with our European partners the logic of expanding that idea to its conclusion—the evolution of a free market in currencies and banking such as existed in Britain before 1840 and produced the financial stability and low interest rates which were the foundation of our economic prosperity in the 19th century?
    The Prime Minister: I confess that we had not thought of my hon. Friend's ingenious solution. As she knows, we have put forward alternative plans for economic and monetary union in the Community which would preserve the authority of this national Parliament. I understand that Karl-Otto Poehl has made supportive remarks about them and I hope that they will find much support in the rest of the Community.
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that the arts are now suffering from their worst ever financial crisis because of a £40 million shortfall in the Government arts grant? How does she reconcile that with her comment when she first came to office that there would be no "candle-end economies" in the arts? Before the final curtain falls on the arts, will she help them out of this financial crisis?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, grants to the Arts Council have increased in real terms and a fantastic amount of sponsorship of the arts by industry has given great help to orchestras, theatres and many
    182
    artistic events. If the arts are popular—I fully support them and agree that they are popular—I hope that people will spend more of their own money on attending arts events as their standard of living increases.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this exciting, hopeful but still uncertain time, it is not rhetoric but deeds that count? What is her view of the need to give practical help to the emergent democracies of Poland and, in particular, Hungary?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend's fundamental assertion that times of uncertainty can also be times of great danger, and that a wish to have democracy is nothing like having the capacity to set up that structure and get it working. We are already, both with the European Community and on our own account, giving practical help to Poland and Hungary in material terms. Help is also being given through the Community and we have relaxed some of the quota restrictions on trade for Hungary and Poland. That is practical help and we shall also consider further matters.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: The weekend papers tell us that the noble Lord Marshall of the Central Electricity Generating Board will receive more than £300,000 as a pay-off for the Prime Minister's monumental blunder in not listening to her advisers when they told her to withdraw all existing nuclear power plants from the privatisation proposal. More crucially, when will the Prime Minister pay off the moral debt to adult and child haemophiliacs? Despite last night's vote, does she agree that all these adults and children are more deserving than the noble Lord Marshall because they are not responsible for the position in which they find themselves?
    The Prime Minister: Should Lord Marshall resign, compensation will be a matter for negotiation according to his contract and will be carried out between the two people involved. With regard to haemophiliacs, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have made an ex gratia payment of £10 million to the Macfarlane trust. By virtue of their nature, many charitable funds have to go to those in need. £10 million was given to the Macfarlane trust, not all of which has been committed. When the ex gratia payment was made it was indicated that if it should be insufficient we would consider making greater payments to the fund. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I cannot comment on court cases from this Box.

Ambulance Dispute
3.30 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: 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 letter sent yesterday afternoon by Mr. Tom Crosby, London's acting chief ambulance officer, and the threat to the accident and emergency service presently being offered by ambulance crews.".
Yesterday afternoon, a little after 3.30 pm, all 71 London ambulance stations received a letter warning the crews that if they continued to respond to direct 999 calls from hospitals, doctors, members of the public and even some police officers, they would not only be in direct contravention of management instructions, but would leave themselves liable for criminal prosecution for the theft of ambulances.
The precise words of Mr. Crosby's letter were:
"Driving on the public highway in a vehicle taken without its owner's consent and without authorised (by a controller) insurance cover will conceivably be constructed as breaches in the criminal law."
That is not only blackmail of the worst order, but also continues to use the lives of sick and ill patients as a stick with which to beat the ambulance crews to accept a pay cut by tightening up the lock-out of ambulance workers in London. It forces ambulance crews to choose between their patients' lives and their own possible criminal prosecution.
If Mr. Crosby is serious, what does he expect to happen? Are the police to arrest the crews as they leave the ambulance stations on mercy missions? Ambulance workers will not be bullied. The more they are kicked in the teeth by Mr. Crosby and the Secretary of State for
184
Health, the more it brings them together. The action and determination of the caring women and men of this country's ambulance service is spreading.
If this urgent debate is not granted, a further week must pass before we are allowed to make a subsequent application. From midnight tonight, workers in Coventry, Warwickshire and the rest of the west midlands will escalate their action and, in their words, take the London road. As in London, the 999 service in my area will be preserved at all costs because accident and emergency crews are pledged to provide it, whether they are paid or suspended.
This escalation is the sole responsibility of a hard-faced and hard-hearted Secretary of State and his craven hireling, Mr. Crosby. Mr. Crosby should be sacked. The Secretary of State should resign. The Army should be withdrawn. The workers should be paid a living wage before the Government's tactics put yet another life at risk. I urge you to grant this application, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The letter of Acting Chief Ambulance Officer Crosby and the provision of an accident and emergency service by ambulance workers."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving reasons. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said and, as he knows, I have to decide whether his application should be given precedence over the business already set down for today or for tomorrow. I regret that in this case, the matters raised do not meet the requirments of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, the Lobby was briefed on the basis that today we would hear a statement on the White Paper on community care. This afternoon, a written answer was deposited in the Library, which opens with the following sentence from the Secretary of State for Health:
"I am pleased to be able to announce that our White Paper, 'Caring for People: Community Care in the next Decade and Beyond' will be published on Thursday 16 November."
As the House will immediately appreciate, Thursday is the one sitting day of the week on which it is not possible to make an oral statement to the House. That is presumably why that day was chosen. This choice of date is an affront to the House. In 15 years as a Member of Parliament I cannot recall a single occasion on which a Minister was prepared to say that a White Paper was ready for publication but will not be published until the day on which the House rises.
The House knows how pressing is this issue. It also knows from the press reports how controversial some elements of that White Paper will be, such as the proposal to put the home help service out to private contract. I submit that it would be an outrage if that White Paper was produced on the day on which the Secretary of State could avoid answering questions in the House.
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it is the function of your office to defend the right of the House to challenge and scrutinise Ministers. I invite the representatives of the Government who are present, including the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State and the Chief Whip, to assure the House that, if it is not possible to produce this White Paper before Prorogation, the White Paper will not be published before the House sits again.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will hear them all at once.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support entirely what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said. It is a scandal and an outrage that this procedure is being used. That is compounded by the fact that the press is now carrying reports that the Health Bill, which will be produced only six or seven days after the White Paper, will contain the Government's implementation of contents of the White Paper. Does that not show the contempt with which the Government are treating the House of Commons?
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House will know, this White Paper arises from a statement that I made in the House a short time ago, setting out the policy and the Government's decisions in the light of the Griffiths report on community care. That statement was reasonably non-controversial. Large parts of it received a welcome on both sides of the House. It was my intention to produce this White Paper before the House rose, but I regret to say that it is still with the printers and it is not possible to produce it before Thursday this week.
186
The publication of this White Paper would not normally give rise to any need for a statement. Nor are its contents, as leaked by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), accurately described. The White Paper will follow quite naturally from the statement that I made a few weeks ago.
It was precisely to avoid allegations that I was trying to smuggle out the White Paper on the day the House was prorogued that I decided to answer that written question today and to acknowledge openly that it would not be possible to produce the White Paper before Thursday. I shall be in London on Thursday and shall be freely available, and if the White Paper produces a sensational new controversy, I look forward to answering in the usual way. However, I do not think that it will contain more than useful detail. It certainly will not enlarge the level of controversy beyond the very limited extent to which there is controversy around this statement at the moment.
Mr. Robin Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State may well be in London on Thursday, but the House will not be sitting on Thursday. That is the point at issue. I am entirely willing, if the Secretary of State is going to tell us—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter which touches on the privilege of the House. If the Secretary of State is telling the House that he cannot produce the White Paper today or tomorrow because of printing difficulties, that is entirely acceptable. However, I invite the Secretary of State to assure the House that the White Paper will not be published while the House is not sitting, and that it will be retained until an occasion when the Secretary of State can make a statement to the House and can answer questions in the House.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have spent about 18 months being accused of dragging my feet over Griffiths and community care and of not producing policy quickly enough. I am now producing a White Paper as readily as possible in line with the statement that I made to the House. Everybody wishes to know the detail of the policy, and the White Paper is being eagerly awaited. I do not propose to delay it and have explained the reasons why it cannot be produced before Thursday.
If the hon. Gentleman is alarmed by the reports, created by his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, that the White Paper is somehow about privatising home helps and the caring services, he can be reassured that it contains no such proposals, and that it is in line with the statement that I have given.
Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think than any further points of order can arise—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that this is not a matter of order for me—
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that this has really been a question and answer session across the Dispatch Box. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Hughes rose—
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I will not—[interruption] I will not take it because it is not a matter of order for me. I will take any other points of order.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House written question No. 289 on today's Order Paper, on the Government's response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others concerning detention under the prevention of terrorism legislation. This is a matter of such importance that my hon. Friends and I were astounded to learn that, not only has that written question been tabled—we believe it to be what is known in the House as a planted question—but the Government have used the written answer to make a statement on this most important matter.
When the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 was going through the House, as a member of the Standing Committee I recall that we were assured that, when the matter of permanent derogation came up, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would make a statement to the House. We believe that it is an abuse of the House that, yet again, the Government have smuggled out a most important decision on a day such as this under the guise of a written answer.
Mr. Speaker: Of course, it is not a matter for me whether questions are answered in the form of a written answer or not. It is not a matter of order. Whatever sympathy I have with having statements made in the House, they tend to greatly delay our business. I must remind the House that today we have a timetable motion, followed by opposed private business and then a prayer. The House will appreciate that the opposed private business can go on for three hours, whatever time it is entered upon, which might affect the time for the prayer.
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take Mr. McNamara.
Mr. McNamara: I will bear in mind what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but what concerns me is that in their reply the Government talk about the threat posed by terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and then state:
"The power to hold terrorist suspects for a period of up to seven years"—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McNamara: Seven years.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be, but that is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an answer to a question.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker.: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Cryer: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, I will hear it.
Mr. Cryer: Do you recall, Mr. Speaker, that when, in the past, statements have not been made and publications have not been provided, there has been some difficulty with Black Rod getting into the Chamber and bringing the Session of Parliament to an end? Black Rod needs permission to enter the Chamber because of the age-old tradition that, as the representative of the monarch, Black Rod can enter only with our permission. If the Government do not provide information—it has happened in the past—the Commons might refuse Black Rod entry, and that refusal would be in order.
Mr. Speaker: I certainly hope that that kind of disruption would not happen—[Interruption.] Order. We establish the identity of Black Rod, but he has a right to enter the Chamber.
Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on a different subject?
Mr. Wallace: Yes. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that, often late at night, the House is invited to approve what in the past were called rate support grant orders and what are now called revenue support grant orders. In a recent revenue support grant instrument, a substantial error was made by the Scottish Office in regard to the amount due to the city of Glasgow district council. It is my information that the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to issue a statement in Scotland tonight on that matter. As there is an admission that one important error has been made, and as it is likely that other important errors may appear in measures passed by the House, do you agree that it would be more appropriate for the Secretary of State or another Scottish Minister to explain that error to the House and be available to be questioned about it?
Mr. Speaker: It may be more appropriate, but it is not a matter relating to order in the Chamber.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When making his application under Standing Order No. 20, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) raised the question of a letter from the chief of the London ambulance service—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further.
Mr. Corbyn: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I have told the House that, whatever happens tonight, opposed private business may go on for three hours. That will affect the prayer. I believe that, in the interests of the whole House, we should now move on.

Overseas Aid (Assistance to the Poorest)
3.46 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 to ensure that the bulk of United Kingdom official development assistance is concentrated on the poorest countries and the poorest people living in them and that a substantial proportion of aid spending is devoted to agricultural rural development to benefit especially women and children; and to require the Overseas Development Administration to establish a timetable during which overall official United Nations aid targets may be reached.
My Bill sets out priorities and moral imperatives for overseas aid. It highlights the hypocricy of a Government who laud personal giving to the Third world but more than cancel that out with public parsimony. The Bill must be campaigned for in the short term and, under the next Labour Government, should be implemented. It insists that those in the refugee camps whom we can film, we can also feed. A wealthy country which fails to meet its responsibilities to the Third world exposes its own moral inadequacies.
The 1980s should have been a decade of advancement in the developing world. Instead, it has been a time of ever-increasing debt and of the negative transfer of resources from the developing to the developed world. Debt owned by the developing world now totals about £700 billion, an increase of one third in the last four years. In 1985, developing countries paid their creditors $29 billion more in interest and principal than they received in aid. Those trends are continuing. In other words, the situation is deteriorating.
As UNICEF recently disclosed, average family incomes in Africa and Latin America have fallen by between 10 and 25 per cent. since 1980. The poorest groups are the hardest hit. An increasing number are finding it more difficult to obtain even the basic necessities of life. Child malnutrition is now on the increase in most developing countries. Governments in debt must reduce their social services bills, which means reduced health care and less education.
Without falling into the simplification of citing goodies and baddies, it is clear that Her Majesty's Government must take at least some share of the blame. Since 1979, they have allowed Britain's aid programme substantially to deteriorate. In real terms, Britain's aid budget was allowed to fall by 36 per cent. between 1979 and 1987.
In terms of percentage of GNP—a crucial measure recognised by all donor nations—the figures are equally damning. In the last year of the last Labour Government, British aid had reached the level of 0·52 per cent., of GNP, and the United Nations goal of 0·7 per cent. of GNP was in sight. The incoming Tory Government reversed that trend and began to downgrade the importance of aid. It declined steadily year by year, until, by 1987, it had reached the miserable figure of 0·28 per cent. of GNP. In 1988, it made a small recovery, rallying to 0·32 per cent.
In theory, the Government are committed to achieving the United Nations target "when economic circumstances permit". The Prime Minister said that at the 1983 general election. We have since heard that phrase in a different context. In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the Secretary of State for the Environment described the United Nations target as "slightly spurious". That reveals the true Tory attitude.
190
The decline in British aid as a percentage of GNP has reduced us from sixth in the league table of the 18 Western aid givers in 1979 to 14th today. Those figures should be deeply embarrassing, as other countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands seem to manage the target and those that do not are at least edging towards it. For instance, since 1979 Italy has increased its aid by 300 per cent., using the same criterion.
Clearly, the Government have no commitment to the 0·7 per cent. figure. That is why, in December 1988, Britain was criticised by other donor nations in the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development when it called on this Government to
"reverse the downward trend in the United Kingdom's ODA/GNP ratio … and to make sustained progress towards the 0·7 per cent. ODA target."
Of course that target is achievable, and the Bill demands a timetable to achieve it. We hear much about the Government's budget surplus, part of which is being used to pay off the national debt. Surely that should be a lower priority than the opportunity to benefit the poorest citizens of the world. The next Labour Government will not confuse priorities, and will work towards the 0·7 per cent. target. It is not a "spurious" figure, and we will achieve it in the lifetime of one Parliament—five years.
It is not just the amount of aid which matters, but its quality, and the Bill recognises that. The Government have presided over a deterioration in standards. The last Labour Government had an enviable record in delivering effective aid where it was needed—in the poorest countries, among the poor and disadvantaged social groups. Those criteria seem to have been lost in the general downgrading of aid under the Government. The Government seem prepared to praise charity events such as Live Aid and Comic Relief, but when it comes to finding money themselves, their attitude changes.
It is astonishing that, despite the crisis in Africa in the past decade, and during a period of massive individual giving in this country, British aid to Africa suffered a decline of 26·5 per cent. between 1979 and 1987. British people are generous, but the British Government apparently do not share their concern. That is a tragedy and an outrage.
The Government do not seem to know the meaning of the word "quality" when it comes to aid. They are far keener on providing easy loans for middle-income countries, and on winning contracts for British exporting firms than on providing effectively targeted aid. Where they do provide funds, they can be way off the mark. For instance, British aid to Bangladesh has tended to be concentrated on large infrastructure and industry projects such as the electric power project for Dhaka. Yet the majority of the population live in rural areas, so it is difficult to see what they will gain from those projects. Aid needs to be properly targeted if it is to do most good. That is why we must reject the notion of the Overseas Development Administration as an adjunct of the Department of Trade and Industry. If the Government supported British industry at home rather than manipulating aid funds for use abroad, we would all be better off.
Of course there is a role for British industry in overseas aid and aid giving is not totally altruistic. British firms will gain from the export of necessary items. However, as the

191
Bill insists, aid should be targeted on the most needy. The Department of Trade and Industry should not be the master of policy.
Aid policy must be sensitive to environmental concerns and there should be a special place for women. There ought to be a women's unit within the ODA—as the Bill sets out—to take account of women's views and needs. In Africa, women form the majority of the food growers in the economy and their essential role in child rearing makes their importance for future development almost impossible to exaggerate. Yet, under the ODA United Kingdom aid programme, only one in six training places go to Third-world women.
We have a duty not only to make bilateral aid more effective. We have a key role to play also in multilateral aid, as over 40 per cent. of all United Kingdom aid is administered through international institutions. In 1987, £540 million of British aid went through multilateral institutions, principally the EC, the United Nations and the World Bank. The bulk of such moneys, however, is not used as efficiently as it could be. We are a major contributor to the EC—over half our multilateral aid goes to its European development fund and food aid programme. We should work towards an improvement in the administration of such aid. Far too much emphasis is still placed in the EC on large prestige projects. That, too, runs against the spirit of my Bill.
The overseas aid debate does not occupy a sufficiently high place on the political agenda. The problem does not lie with lack of concern at individual level, as is demonstrated by the response to the images of famine and despair when they are presented to the British public. It lies in large measure in the lack of information about the Government's niggardly role and the specific use of the aid programme. The Bill may help in a small way to stimulate debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brian Wilson, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Tom Clarke, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. David Blunkett, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Donald Anderson, Ms. Diane Abbott and Mrs. Ann Clwyd.

Overseas Aid (Assistance to the Poorest)
  OVERSEAS AID (ASSISTANCE TO THE POOREST) BILL
  Mr. Brian Wilson accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 to ensure that the bulk of United Kingdom official development assistance is concentrated on the poorest countries and the poorest people living in them and that a substantial proportion of aid spending is devoted to agricultural rural development to benefit especially women and children; and to require the Overseas Development Administration to establish a timetable during which overall official United Nations aid targets may be reached: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 15 November and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

Self-governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill
(ALLOCATION OF TIME)
3.57 pm
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [3rd May] be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall for the purposes of paragraph 13 of the Order [3rd May] be regarded as proceedings on an allotted day.
(2) The Order in which those proceedings are to be taken shall be Lords Amendment 18, Lords Amendment 25, Lords Amendment 80, Lords Amendment 1, Lords Amendment 66 and 67, Lords Amendment 81, Lords Amendments 83 to 88, Lords Amendment 2, Lords Amendment 40, Lords Amendment 44, Lords Amendment 62, Lords Amendment 65, Lords Amendment 92, Lords Amendments 68 to 78, Lords Amendment 9, Lords Amendment 47, Lords Amendment 52, Lords Amendments 56 to 61, Lords Amendments 63 and 64, Lords Amendment 79, Lords Amendment 91, Lords Amendments 93 and 94, Lords Amendment 3, Lords Amendments 5 to 8, Lords Amendments 11 to 13, Lords Amendments 20 and 21, Lords Amendments 26 to 29, Lords Amendments 48 to 51, Lords Amendments 53 to 55, Lords Amendment 4, Lords Amendment 17, Lords Amendment 39, Lords Amendment 10, Lords Amendments 14 and 15, Lords Amendment 82, Lords Amendments 89 and 90, Lords Amendment 16, Lords Amendment 19, Lords Amendments 22 to 24, Lords Amendments 41 to 43, Lords Amendments 30 to 38, and Lords Amendments 45 and 46.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the Order [3rd May], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the end of such period beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order as is of the length specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE

Proceedings

Lords Amendments

Length of period

Nos. 18,25,80, 1,66,67,81,83 to 88, 2, 40, 44, 62, 65, 92, 68 to 78,9,47, 52, 56 to 61, 63, 64 79, 91, 93 and 94.

One hour and thirty minutes.

Nos. 3, 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20,21, 26 to 29,48 to 51, 53 to 55, 4, 17, 39, 10, 14, 15, 82, 89, 90, 16, 19, 22 to 24 and 41 to 43.

Two hours.

Nos. 30 to 36.

Two hours and thirty minutes.

Remaining Lords Amendments.

Three hours.

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made

193
by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings
4.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
The Bill has had a good airing in the House, in Committee and in another place, and it is appropriate that the House should complete its scrutiny today, so that it can complete its passage on to the statute book and the
194
country can begin to reap the benefits of the legislation. The purpose of the timetable motion is to enable the House to give proper and orderly consideration to the amendments made in another place, within a limit of time adequate for that to be done, and having regard to the relatively narrow range of topics covered by those amendments.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland moved that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, he said:
"education does not consist only of what happens within school, and nor does what happens within schools interest only the teaching profession. The involvement of parents … is likely to bring results that will ultimately be to the benefit of the pupils themselves."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vo. 148, c. 622.]
Throughout the past decade, the Government have consistently taken a lead in giving expression to the rights of parents and developing their role in the education process. The Bill represents the culmination of that development, and when it passes into law it will have a powerful and beneficial influence extending throughout the school system. We have put parents to the top of everyone's agenda, and we may claim credit for that, without in the least detracting from the credit due to those authorities, such as Strathclyde, which likewise have read the signs of the times and are now developing policies of their own to involve parents in the education process.
The Bill is quite distinct from the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988, which now is being implemented throughout Scotland. It is distinct because school boards are intended for every school—the uptake of that facility has been heartening—whereas nobody is put under any obligation to use the provisions for self-governing schools who does not wish to do so. At the same time, the Bill can also be seen as a natural development from the 1988 Act. Some schools may well see the possibility of self-governing status in due course as a logical next step from the school board, but we have stressed repeatedly that we have no specific target for the number of schools that should become self-governing. Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), have made that point. The very existence of the option for a school board, however, will ensure that the parental point of view expressed through the board is heard with proper respect.
We do not expect school boards in large numbers to move immediately towards self-government, but we consider it right that the option should be seen to be available to them from the outset. It is therefore time to complete proceedings on this Bill and bring it into effect. It has already had adequate time for consideration here and in another place. We spent 127 hours on it in the Standing Committee, followed by a full day on Report to the House. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box in his new role, was not a member of the Committee, so I acquit him of responsibility for any aspect of its conduct. Suffice it to say that the Opposition were given ample, indeed generous, time, before the timetable motion and after it, to develop their arguments on aspects of the Bill that troubled them.
The Bill then had three full days of debate, a total of 18 hours, in another place, where the Opposition made a measured and constructive contribution. So I hope that

195
the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie will not rise to complain that the Bill is being rushed through with undue haste.
The Bill returns to the House with 94 amendments. Of those, between 50 and 60 are, on any view of the matter, technical or drafting amendments whose purpose is to make the Bill clearer. Another 20 or so are necessary consequences of other more substantial amendments. Only a handful of amendments deal with matters of any substance, and I shall refer briefly to one of the most salient of them to illustrate my point.
The Bill originally provided that a ballot of parents on self-governing status could be initiated either at the request of a specified number of parents or by a single resolution of a school board. That remained in the Bill when it left this House. We were of course aware that the procedure for acquiring self-governing status was, in this and other respects, different from that for acquiring grant-maintained status under the Education Reform Act 1988.
Our procedure is swifter, and deliberately so. For example, under this Bill a school board will be required, after a positive ballot result, to produce its formal proposals within one month; the corresponding period allowed under the Education Reform Act is six months. That difference has not been questioned at any stage. It is common ground between Government and Opposition that, if there is to be a proposal for self-governing status, the issue should be settled as quickly as reasonably possible. Prolonged uncertainty is likely to affect a school's morale and reputation.
However, this must be balanced against another need that has been urged on the Government at successive stages of the Bill. It is one that we have always acknowledged—the need to ensure that the parents who vote in a ballot have a proper appreciation of what they are voting for. It was with that in mind that we accepted the amendment in the other place—I hope that the House will agree with it later this afternoon—to the effect that, when a board has made a resolution to call a ballot, it must first inform the education authority and then allow between four and six weeks to elapse, after which it must confirm its first resolution if it still wants to proceed with a ballot.
This means that the issue will be out in the public domain and open to debate for a fair length of time before the ballot. There can be no doubt that any education authority would want to respond, to make its views known to the school board and—very likely—to the parents directly at this stage. The school board, too, if it is in earnest, will want to use this time to consult the parents who elected it and state its case to them—indeed, it is likely to be under pressure to do so. The board will have to take some time to reflect on its initial decision and hear the responses that come back before finally deciding whether to go ahead with a ballot.
This amendment illustrates two aspects that characterise all the amendments that we are to consider today. In the first place, it represents a Government response to a constructive point made in debate; on the other hand, it does not represent a radical shift of policy on our part.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend will know that, in England, some local authorities have bludgeoned and intimidated parents into
196
not taking up grant-maintained status. Is he taking that into consideration, and is he satisfied that the school boards will have enough resources to be able to convey their message equally forcefully to the parents?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. Of course the experience of colleagues south of the border is relevant to our consideration of this measure. I believe that we have made adequate provision in the Bill for my hon. Friend's point, but we shall certainly keep an eye on it. I would condemn any local authority that sought to bludgeon school boards or parents into changing their attitude to these important matters.
But we have not shifted policy in any degree in the amendments that we are bringing forward today. We are bringing forward a refinement and a clarification of policy rather than any new departure. In considering the Lords amendments, we shall not be asking the House to consider any new policy. The underlying policy has been thoroughly debated and settled in both Houses, and we are not here to reopen that debate.
I shall, if I may, refer to the other significant amendments more briefly to demonstrate my general point. There are amendments clarifying the significance of the ballot result. Let me again briefly quote my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading:
"the ballot does not itself decide the question of opting out; it simply determines whether the process can reach the next stage."
My right hon. Friend went on to point out that, as Secretary of State, he
"would of course take into account the proportion who had voted in a ballot … but I think it right to give most weight to the views of those who have chosen to exercise their vote either for or against the proposal."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148. c. 631.]
Simply in order to reach a reasonable decision, the Secretary of State will have to take account of all the information available to him about the situation of the school, and the ballot result is one—but only one—of the relevant factors. An amendment which the Government accepted in the other place gives effect to that.
There is also an amendment which gives effect to the policy that the Government had already declared, that a self-governing school should not be able, as a rule, to move to any change in its basic characteristics until it has been established as a self-governing school for at least five years. There is also an amendment which responds to an undertaking given to the Opposition in Committee to entrench a parental majority on the board of management of a self-governing school. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling welcomed the Opposition's conversion to that concept, and we have sought to give effect to their concern.
But all this is well-trodden ground. There are other aspects of the provisions on self-governing schools to which the critics have not given a great deal of attention. They have painted a picture of the self-governing school which would not be borne out by any dispassionate scrutiny of the Bill. The self-governing school has been portrayed as some kind of private enclave for a coterie of parents. But it is difficult to see how that is to be squared with the requirement on those parents to obtain mass support in a ballot, after a campaign which will extend

197
over several weeks and will be conducted with maximum publicity. Even if such groups do exist, they may be disappointed by the reality of the legislation.
We have made it clear, and the Bill makes it clear, that a school must continue to be just as much a public and community asset after it becomes self-governing as it was before. Boards of management will be under a specific statutory duty, for example, to promote the use of the school premises and facilities by the community.
It is also appropriate for me to refer here briefly to the other parts of the Bill. Part II, which was the subject of extensive consultation and discussion beforehand, has been found largely acceptable to both Houses. We have had some debates on some aspects of part III, but in the end those provisions have been accepted with little amendment.
We have now had two years of legislative innovation in Scottish education. That has produced a great deal of new material and new ideas for those involved in the education system to digest. The period that lies ahead must necessarily be one of consolidation, and I do not mean by that that it will he a period of rest or retrenchment, and certainly not of stagnation. I hope that it will be a time of positive and co-operative effort to take up and to put into practice the new developments made possible by the legislation.
There is common ground between the Government and local authorities on many things—on school boards, on development in the curriculum for the five to 14 age group, on the professional development of teachers, and on the management of schools and further education. I hope that we shall be able to work together vigorously on those things. The expeditious passage of the Bill's remaining stages will clear the way and set the scene for that to begin.
4.8 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: I thank the Minister for his welcome and, in turn, welcome him to his first debate as Minister with responsibility for Scottish education. On the surface, his rather winsome smile is preferable to the sneering and snarling that we have had for the past two years from his predecessor, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). He has now gone off to work with endangered species, which is rather akin to herding together the remaining Tory Members of Parliament in Scotland, letting in a rabid dog and throwing away the key.
The Minister comes to us fresh from his triumphs in electricity privatisation. It is difficult to imagine how someone so mild and inoffensive could cause such carnage: the present chaos in the electricity industry follows his early triumph with the poll tax. From poll tax to nuclear tax! Scottish education and Scottish enterprise had better watch out, for this man is the Frank Spencer of the Tory Front Bench, creating chaos wherever he goes.
I am new to the debates on this Bill—even newer than Hansard suggests. As we know, its records are impeccable, and it was therefore with some amazement that I read that I had contributed to the Report stage debate on 20 June. That would have been difficult, as I was in Washington with the Select Committee on Home Affairs at the time. Having read the record of the debates on the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee, however, I can only
198
pay tribute to the work of those who, unlike myself, are not new to it—the battle-scarred troops behind me, and the noble Lords Carmichael and Macaulay.
Opposition Members will resist the guillotine motion and fight the Bill to the last, because it was forged in dishonesty, and dishonesty remains its central characteristic. The Secretary of State stated explicitly at the time of the 1987 election that opting out would not apply in Scotland. He may have meant what he said then; that was before the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Stirling got to him. That is the trouble with having a bendy toy as Secretary of State: he puts himself and his career before Scottish education. He should have stood up and fought. Now his career is stuck; he is unhappy, marooned, shell-shocked and becalmed. More important, the Scottish people have been deceived. A Bill that has not even the flimsiest of Scottish mandates is poised to become law, simply because the Prime Minister imposed it on a half-hearted Secretary of State.
What is the purpose of the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is not to build on the roots of Scottish education, developing a policy based on Scottish culture and distinctiveness? The Bill merits longer debate because it is fundamental to Scottish education.
How do I square that belief with the knowledge that there is almost no desire for the Bill in Scotland? Let me explain. The same conflict exists in what the Tories are saying. According to the hon. Member for Stirling when he was responsible for education:
"It is the most radical change in Scottish education for a generation or more, and I freely admit that. Its potential is profound and the benefits it offers are obvious to some already. In time, they will be widely recognised … people … will realise that they have a tool with which to reshape Scottish education to the great benefit of its users."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 701.]
The present Minister responsible for education said on Sunday, in a television programme:
"I actually don't think that opting out is going to be something that the vast majority of Scottish schools is going to get involved in. I would expect that relatively few will decide to opt out."
There is considerable conflict between those two statements. On the one hand, this is
"the most radical change … for a generation or more".
I interpret that as meaning 30 or more years. On the other hand, we are told, "Let us not bother about this; it will affect only a few schools." Who is right? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is right, because the Bill gives the Secretary of State overwhelming powers over the development of Scottish education.
The major issue of contention in Scottish education is school closure: too few pupils and too many places. That issue must be faced by any responsible authority. The Bill gives to the Secretary of State the power to say which schools will close and which will stay open. We know how the Secretary of State will use that power. The Bill sounds the death knell for schools in areas that are struggling to provide a good education for their children. It makes sick the idea that the Secretary of State cares about deprived areas. It is one more kick in the teeth for local government after the poll tax. It removes from education authorities the ability to look at schools as a whole. Councillors will have to face the electorate and explain what is happening, but the power will be hidden away in St. Andrew's house.
There is not the slightest doubt that this is an attempt to bring back selection, despite the Secretary of State having said on Second Reading:

199
"I can state categorically and without equivocation that the Bill is not designed to reintroduce selectivity".—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 625.]
I give to that all the weight that I would give to the statements of a salesman of very used cars.
In contrast, once again I believe what was said by the hon. Member for Stirling in The Scotsman on 6 April:
"We are not prepared to rule out selection entirely."
That is what is behind the Bill.
I have read all the Committee's deliberations. The Under-Secretary of State could never bring himself in Committee to say anything good about comprehensive education. He was scornful of any academic research that showed that there had been real progress since the introduction of comprehensive education. For two years as an education Minister he sneered at the state system, thus depriving it of good morale. He said, "I do not think that the state system is any good and I am going to introduce a Bill to break up the system."
The Bill is, I believe, designed to break up the comprehensive system because of the sort of material that appeared this week in The Sunday Times under the heading:
"Grammar schools to make a comeback after 20 years."
The article states clearly—after, I suggest, a leak from the Department of Education and Science—
"The first new grammar schools in Britain since the comprehensive revolution began in the 1960-s will be created under plans to be revealed later this month."
What is planned will be spread over the border by the Under-Secretary of State.
In Committee there was much talk about choice, but the Opposition believe that the introduction of comprehensive education gave parents and children more choice than they had ever had before. We should like more comprehensive schools in order to give more choice. We should like comprehensive nursery schools to be provided. We should like more comprehensive training and more comprehensive adult education. That would provide choice. The Opposition believe that comprehensive schools can add on options by means of links with colleges and links between schools.
In itself, the term "comprehensive" is a misnomer. No school can ever be totally comprehensive in terms of subject, catchment area and age. There is always a compromise—about special schools, special gifts or list D schools. However, there comes a legitimate point when we have to say that we must hang on to the central core and idea of the comprehensive. It is impossible to have unfettered choice for some without denying choice to the great majority. At some point it must be said that the exercise of choice for some people is the denial of choice for others, and the good of the great majority is harmed by the choice of others, which is sometimes misguided. That is what happened in the past to senior and junior secondary schools where some people's ability was rewarded. The Minister uses choice as a means of breaking up the comprehensive system.
I am willing to abide by the choice of the Scottish people. I am willing to travel the length and breadth of Scotland with the Minister asking Scottish parents whether they want a development of the Scottish comprehensive or of opted-out schools. I am willing to submit to any objective poll on the development of comprehensives against his plan. Scottish parents would
200
overwhelmingly choose to support comprehensive education. Because the Government are seeking to deny Scottish people that choice, we totally reject the Bill. The Government know that there is no support for it. Because their proposals are anti-choice, anti-local government, centralised and imposed from outside, we should resist the guillotine motion, and the Labour Government of 1991 will repeal the Act.
4.20 pm
Mr. Allan Stewart: I add my personal welcome to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) in his new elevated position, and express the hope that he enjoys it as much as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has made previous speeches on this subject, although he was not on the Committee considering the Bill; the matter was raised in discussions on the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 and the hon. Gentleman was on that Committee. In a famous reference, he suggested that the possibility of opting out for the Neilston primary school in my constituency because of a dispute over a possible extension to that school. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be disgraceful if Neilston received the extra allocation for that extension. I am always in the business of doing little acts of kindness for Opposition Members and it seemed to me that those sentiments should have a wider audience. He will be delighted to know that I quoted him in full to a mass meeting of the parents at Neilston primary school. He also attacked Paisley grammar school on the basis of spurious comparisons with schools in part of my constituency from which no one ever goes to Paisley grammar.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am a product of the Scottish comprehensive system and the allegation that the Bill is about breaking up the state system is wholly erroneous. Schools are not opting out of the state system; technically, they are opting into the state system from a local authority system.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about choice could apply equally to the parents' charter. I am glad, that in his first speech as Opposition spokesman on Scottish education, the hon. Gentleman has stated that his party is against the parents' charter.
Much of the debate in Committee was about the relationship between school boards and self-governing schools. There is need for an orderly debate for many reasons. One is to enable the hon. Gentleman to make his position clear about some of the issues raised in Committee, such as the famous Strathclyde report. The hon. Member for Fife, Central said:
"I very much welcome this excellent report",
but it was not welcomed by every regional councillor in Strathclyde. One councillor said:
"I am dismayed at what has come out here."
The Educational Institute of Scotland accused Councillor Charles Gray, the leader of the council, of working hand in hand with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). In turn, Mr. Charles Gray called the Strathclyde EIS officials
"educated ostriches who did not represent the rank and file of teachers or the Labour movement".

201
Now the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie owes it to the House, the EIS and Mr. Charles Gray to tell us on which side of that argument he is, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to do so during the debate.
It is essential that the supplementary guillotine motion is agreed to get the Bill on the statute book, because the House is due to prorogue on Thursday, subject to satisfactory progress on business. Without the guillotine, satisfactory progress will not be made and the House will be treated to a repetition of what happened in Committee. The House should not be reassured by the fact that the amendments are mainly technical. In Committee, important clauses such as clause 15 on ballots hurtled through in 15 minutes, while technical clauses took hours. My hon. Friends who served on the Committee will recall clause 28 and that an undertaking was given by the Opposition that it would be delivered at midday on 25 April. It was delayed into the middle of the night, not because of a dispute with the Government but because Labour Members discovered that their amendments did not mean what they thought. Instead of admitting that and getting on with the debate, they continued into the middle of the night.
We should not believe that the guillotine is unnecessary because the Opposition are likely to accept the Lords amendments. That offers no reassurance of a short debate. In Committee, in the middle of the night, the hon. Member for Fife, Central moved an amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister intervened. Did he say "I shall consider this amendment"? No, he did not. Did he say, "This is a good amendment, but it is technically defective"? No, he did not. He said:
"I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, so perhaps we can move on".
Move on we did not; Labour Members continued to talk about the amendment. Eventually, the Chairman said:
"I am in the Committee's hands, but I find it difficult to understand why amendment No. 154 cannot be dealt with quickly".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25 April 1989; c. 1005–6.]
What happened? Labour Members went on, despite the fact that they had received a kindly warning from the Chairman and despite the fact that the Minister had accepted the amendment, which nobody had opposed.
The same happened when I moved an uncontroversial amendment that was suggested by the Scottish Consumer Council. The Opposition indicated support in principle for it, the Minister said that he would consider it and I said that I was content, but the Opposition, not unreasonably, said that they were not content. They wanted an absolute commitment from the Minister. The Minister was persuaded and said, "I shall accept the amendment," but what happened? Opposition Members went on and on.
Hon. Members may believe that the guillotine is not necessary because Labour Members will want to get home for the break, because they are reasonable people or because, given a free rein, they might run out of steam. The House should dismiss that notion. When Labour Members run out of steam, they will bring on, with the skirl of the pipes and choruses of gaelic songs, their ultimate weapon—the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). He persuaded the Committee of his considerable ability to speak at enormous length—obviously within order—about almost anything. Not only did he refine that technique but he introduced a new technique—the silent
202
filibuster. He stood up, but said absolutely nothing. He was firmly and fairly brought to order by the Chairman, who said:
"Order. Let us be clear. The hon. Member must not stand without speaking, because it cannot be recorded in Hansard. It cannot be said that during the day, the hon. Member has shown a lack of words, but, if he has now run out of words, we may make progress."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 21 March 1989; c. 250.]
The events in Committee show why the guillotine is necessary.
The Bill is important. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred to the fact that it was not in the last Conservative party manifesto. It was not in the Eastwood manifesto either, but that was before the closure of Paisley grammar and the Catholic girls' school; fundamental questions were raised about the motives behind those closures in Strathclyde. Having said that, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is difficult to put any closure programme into effect and that Strathclyde was justified in trying to grasp these nettles.
The Bill is important not only because it gives Scottish parents the opportunities of choice but because it reassures them that they have an alternative. I believe that it will be to the great benefit of Scottish parents. I fully support the supplementary guillotine.
4.30 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
This is no ordinary Bill. It is being forced to a conclusion with the use of the guillotine. Any Government who use this procedure should have proved their case overwhelmingly. That the Government have not done so is obvious. By introducing the guillotine, the Government demonstrate, once again, their disregard for the views of the Scottish people.
The Government have repeated their earlier guillotine on Report to stifle proper debate on issues of great importance to Scottish parents, pupils and teachers. The Minister said that the Bill had had a good airing, but the amendments come from the other place and are being rushed through. We should have proper time to discuss them because the Bill is opposed by the majority of people in Scotland. At no time did the Government tell us that they would introduce these measures.
We need more time to discuss how boards of management will take account of the needs and interests of the local community. We need more time to ensure that the future status of schools is not determined by a small, unrepresentative clique of parents who are singlemindedly determined to pursue their own narrow aims. We need more time to ensure that the basic characteristics of a school in regard to admissions policy cannot be changed without the express consent of the majority of the parents in the school and after a period of thorough reflection and democratic consultation. We need more time to ensure that the Secretary of State does not abdicate his responsibility for maintaining an integrated education system.
The Government have not been able to show how schools stand to gain by becoming self-governing. Will it mean a better building, a new school, playing fields or more books or equipment? No one can give us an answer. On the contrary, the key point is that funding for

203
opted-out schools will not mean extra money. The money will be deducted from the grant that the local education authority would otherwise receive for the school.
The Government may have little regard for the effect of their proposed changes, but I assure them and those on the fringes of the Scottish Tory establishment that they matter greatly to people who depend on basic education provision and who value a service that is available to all. In rural areas such as Argyll, the threat is apparent: there are already cuts and closures. Without a basic framework of schools run for the benefit of the entire community, rural communities may find it difficult to survive. Contrary to the Government's protestations, parents in rural areas do not have a choice of school to which to send their children.
Once again, we have a guillotine motion on Scottish legislation. Last night, on the car radio, I heard about the glitter, pomp and ceremony of the Lord Mayor's banquet. I heard the Prime Minister's words ringing out—about freedom to choose, human rights, the spread of liberty and genuine democracy. That has a hollow and hypocritical ring in the ears of the Scots, who have chosen to look after their own affairs, but are debarred from doing so by the Government.
Today we are not allowed to debate the Lord amendments properly. That is a telling sign of the Government's attitude towards the distinctiveness of the Scottish way of life which, in the words of a Welshman, Sir Alwyn Williams,
"stems from an education system of historic merit".
The Government continue to treat the Scottish nation with contempt.
4.35 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to his new responsibilities. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee enjoyed the company of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). Whether he enjoyed our company as much is a moot point. Perhaps it was due to the effectiveness of the contribution of English Members that the Scottish Labour party decided to promote an Englishman to be their spokesman—I know not—but I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities.
The debate is supposed to be about the guillotine motion. I consider that a guillotine is necessary. I read in the newspapers this week that the Labour party is putting it about that the Government's programme is "in a shambles". If it is necessary for the Government to impose a guillotine this late in the Session, it is simply because the Labour party Chief Whip has lost control of his own troops. For night after night during the past two weeks, small groups of Labour Members who represent mining constituencies have kept the House up late. Their speeches have been in order, but I doubt whether their contribution has been more effective than that of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—the silent filibuster which we heard of earlier.
I have no doubt that with such highly controversial legislation—there cannot be an item of legislation on which there is a sharper political divide—all sensible hon. Members must hold the view that an early timetable motion for all stages of the Bill should be imposed.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring under a delusion. He says that this is a highly controversial Bill, but there is no controversy about it in Scotland—the area to which it applies. There is no detectable support for the Bill in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should get that clear in his head.
Mr. Leigh: This is an enabling Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is no detectable support for it, presumably no schools will opt out of local authority control.
On three occasions I have put the question to the hon. Member for Fife, Central and on no occasion was he prepared to answer me. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, did me the great honour of thereafter referring to it as the Gainsborough question, and it remains unanswered. If this is such a controversial item of legislation that there is no support for it, why is the Scottish Labour party worried about it? Presumably no schools will opt out. The English experience has some relevance and value and it proves that the case is otherwise, as I shall show in a moment.
In legislation where there is a sharp political divide, it must be right to timetable early. I doubt whether anything new was said after the first 20 to 30 hours of debate in the Standing Committee. Labour Members on that Committee had to prove to their paymasters in the Scottish teaching unions that they were a robust and powerful Opposition, keeping the Tories up all night, and similar rubbish. Is there a single hon. Gentleman who has had—
Mrs. Ray Mitchie: Or hon. Lady.
Mr. Leigh: Is there a single hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady who has received a letter of complaint about the guillotine motion imposed this week? I doubt it. People outside care about the arguments and the issues, but they do not care about Conservative and Labour Members staying up all night engaging in filibusters and procedural debates.
Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Labour party's paymasters in the Scottish teaching unions. The teaching unions have been careful to obtain cross-party support for their stance. Can the hon. Gentleman name one that is affiliated or pays money to the Labour party?
Mr. Leigh: I shall deal with the Educational Institute of Scotland in a moment. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will give me some credit for having sat with my hon. Friends through discussions on the Bill for over 100 hours and for knowing, therefore, something about what has been said on these matters by the Scottish teachers' unions. I shall deal with that in a moment.
I said that after the first 20 hours of debate, nothing new came out, but perhaps I was wrong. There was a perceptible shifting in the Labour party's position on these matters. Labour Members started by saying, as they have said this afternoon—the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) repeated the point—that there is no support for the proposals. When the original proposal for school boards was published, the Scottish Labour party opposed it. From the results in Scotland, one can see

205
that two thirds of schools, 70 per cent. of pupils and 80 per cent. of secondary schools will have school boards. Turnout in most areas was more than 55 per cent., which is higher than the turnout for most regional council elections, although those councils run education at present.
We can see, therefore, just as we saw in the debate on school boards, that we shall start to win the argument on the ground as the debate continues. If the hon. Member for East Lothian is right in saying that there is no support for the principle of opting out in Scotland, I must refer him to the English experience. Sixty-nine schools have been balloted and no fewer than 50 have opted out. That shows that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, there is considerable support for the principle of opting out.
Other interesting developments have taken place in recent months. The first national survey of parents' views on education was carried out in Scotland, having been commissioned by the Scottish Office. There were some interesting results which confirm all that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling has managed to achieve in his two years in office and Conservative Members congratulate my hon. Friend on all his work for Scottish education. The results are grim reading for the Scottish Labour party because they show that parents support choice of schools, firm discipline, testing, school uniforms, school prize givings and competitions, the regular appraisal of teachers, giving parents a say in what is taught and, to a lesser extent, how it is taught, giving parents some say in how the school budget is spent and more parental involvement through voluntary help in schools.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said earlier, Strathclyde made an about-turn on the matter halfway through our deliberations, much to the chagrin of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). On 17 April, Strathclyde published a report saying that schools and colleges should have far more control over their own affairs, especially in handling their own budgets. It said that a slimmed-down Glasgow headquarters would deal only with future strategy, while the region's six divisions would handle operations in co-operation with local schools and colleges.
Our delight with what we heard was so great that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) suggested that the leader of Strathclyde regional council, Charles Gray, should be given a knighthood. Indeed, he was referred to in our deliberations as "Sir Charles Gray". The hon. Member for Fife, Central was rather surprised by the about-turn by Strathclyde, which undermined all his efforts and everything he had said in the first 10, 20, 30 or 50 hours of our debate. He was forced to say in the Glasgow Herald on 21 April 1989:
"I very much welcome this excellent report",
although he said that the timing did "quite surprise" him. I am not surprised at that, because his position had been wholly undermined.
As the debate progressed over many hours, we saw that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had got it right and that he was in tune with what Scotland, Strathclyde and the parents whose views were reported in the survey wanted. Is it not sad that the Labour party has learnt nothing? It published a policy review which has had universally bad treatment by the press. Even The Independent said that the Labour party
206
"is still influenced by the Fabian approach, under which things are done to people in their best interests, quote, independently of what they want themselves … Labour really isn't learning."
We are not the party which forces education policies down the throats of parents. We want to give parents initiative and choice.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is it not the case that the Labour party's policy is best summed up by its former education spokesman, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) who said that what was good enough for his children was good enough for everybody else's?
Mr. Leigh: That is a disgraceful remark, typical of the old-fashioned Labour party that those of us fighting it have grown to know, love and beat in three successive general elections—and in a fourth one as well, no doubt. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to a conclusion. This is a short debate.
Mr. Leigh: I am coming to a conclusion, but I cannot leave the hon. Member for Fife, Central alone without quoting him once more. On 23 February he wrote:
"we have failed to properly develop the desires of parents to be more involved in their children's education; and we have failed to embrace the real and changing needs of education into a radical and imaginative agenda."
The words of the then Labour party spokesman are the words of a man who realises that his policies have failed. It is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his successor who are now in tune with the wishes of Scottish parents.
4.46 pm
Mr. John McAllion: There is little to which we should heed in the remarks of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), given that he knows little about anything that happens in Scotland, even to the extent that he assumes that the Conservative party has won three successive general elections there. I ask him to go away qietly and look at the Scottish election results in 1979, 1983 and 1987—during which time the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), has had quite a lot to say in Scottish politics—and he will see that the Conservative party has been rejected decisively by the Scottish people, as have the policies that it attempted to push through the House with the support of English Members who know nothing about the issues that are being debated in Scottish education.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that, after 20 hours of discussion in Committee, little new was introduced into the debate. I ask him to consider the contribution of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He seemed to be highly entertained by his hon. Friend's speech, although it was the same speech that he made on 3 May 1989—six months ago—even down to the same quotation from the Official Report of the first Scottish Standing Committee on 21 March 1989. Any hon. Member who doubts that need only to look up Hansard of 3 May at column 251, and he will see the same speech that the hon. Gentleman rendered this afternoon. If ever there was an example of the poverty of the contribution made to politics in Scotland by the Conservative party, we have seen it this afternoon in the contribution of the hon. Member for Eastwood.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are at all interested in debating the amendments, what on earth is the point of that idiotic speech?
Mr. McAllion: The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously does not know what debate this is. We are debating a guillotine motion and there are no amendments for the House to consider. The hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to go back to where he came from, where he would probably find the atmosphere far more congenial.
The Labour party will continue to resist the Bill and the guillotine motion, as we have done throughout the proceedings on the Bill. We do so all the more because the political context in which the measure is being assessed has changed dramatically since the Bill was previously considered by the House. That change has important implications for the way in which its provisions are likely to be implemented in Scotland—if the Bill is ever allowed on to the statute book.
The provisions in the Bill are potentially radical. No one should make any mistake about that. We are considering giving individual schools in Scotland the opportunity to opt out of their education authority's control. For the first time for generations, and certainly in my life, we could see deep divisions in the provision of primary and secondary education. There is also the prospect of the return of academic selection for entry into local neighbourhood schools. Pupils could be denied the right to attend the school at the end of their street on the grounds that they are too dim. It was clear from the speeches of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and English Members in Committee that the spectre will be raised of doors being slammed on Scottish pupils on the grounds of their ethnic origin, sex or religious belief. Conservative Members made it clear that they wanted single-sex schools, Muslim schools and schools dominated by a particular religious ethos to the exclusion of any other.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he believes that Catholics should have the right to separate education but that Jews and Muslims should not?
Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman is not even aware of the changes to be made by the Government. Anyone will be able to gain entry to a Catholic school but will not have to attend any religious classes. That is not the case now. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman suggested that that should be the case in schools which opt out. That is what he and his hon. Friends have sought in supporting the Bill.
The Bill paves the way for the privatisation of further education colleges in Scotland by setting up private companies to manage them. In the process it dismantles the existing structure of pay and conditions for staff. It also establishes technology academies, based on the principle of creaming off the best and brightest pupils from Scottish education, and concentrates an unfair proportion of available resources on them. It reintroduces compulsory national testing into primary schools, which implies branding pupils as either successes or failures at seven and 11. The Bill introduces teacher appraisal, not as a means of strengthening career structures but to allow boards of management to weed out teachers whose faces do not fit—perhaps teachers who represent the EIS, progressive
208
teachers or those who put the needs of pupils before the prejudices of a minority of parents who dominate the board.
Conservative and Opposition Members agree that the provisions in the Bill are radical. Our disagreement is on their desirability. Are the changes necessary, given the state of Scottish education? The answer is no. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland about capital spending on primary and secondary schools in Scotland in the past 10 years. The answer provided by the Minister of State, Scottish Office was that this year, the Government have spent about half as much on schools in Scotland as the Labour Government spent in 1978–79. At current prices the Labour Government spent £108 million on primary and secondary schools in 1978–79 whereas this Government are likely to spend £57 million in 1988–89. What is necessary for education in Scotland is that the Government release resources to improve school buildings. The introduction of divisive and offensive measures which nobody in Scotland wants is unnecessary.
Are the measures in the Bill popular in Scotland? The answer is overwhelmingly no. At St. John's primary school in Alva, parents had themselves elected to the school board with the explicit intention of preventing any changes from being introduced through the medium of the school board. Some parents might have wanted the school to opt out of local authority control.
The evidence that we are considering is not only anecdotal. In the time that has elapsed since we previously discussed the Bill in Committee and on Report, huge press interest has been excited in Scotland about our consideration of the Bill. On occasions, the Committee proceedings seemed more like rival press briefings to put the message across in Scotland than serious examination of the Bill. Both sides were guilty of that. No one can deny that Scottish people are aware of the measures in the Bill.
Subsequently, there have been elections to school boards. They have focused parental interest on the Government's attempt to change education in Scotland. Since then, the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science has been elevated to the chairmanship of the Tory party, which, as he would argue, could mean an increase in Tory party campaigning in Scotland to put the Conservative message across. It is undeniable that the message is getting across to the people of Scotland. They have received it and they understand it—
It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings On the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary for the disposal of them, pursuant to the Order [3 May].
The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 198.

Division No. 406]

[4.56 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Baldry, Tony

Aitken, Jonathan

Batiste, Spencer

Alexander, Richard

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bendall, Vivian

Amess, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Amos, Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Arbuthnot, James

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Ashby, David

Body, Sir Richard

Aspinwall, Jack

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Atkins, Robert

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Boswell, Tim

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

209

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Bowis, John

Hind, Kenneth

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hordern, Sir Peter

Brazier, Julian

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Bright, Graham

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Buck, Sir Antony

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Budgen, Nicholas

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Burns, Simon

Irvine, Michael

Butcher, John

Jack, Michael

Butler, Chris

Jackson, Robert

Butterfill, John

Jessel, Toby

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Carrington, Matthew

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Chope, Christopher

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Churchill, Mr

Key, Robert

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

Kilfedder, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Knapman, Roger

Colvin, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Conway, Derek

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Knowles, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knox, David

Cormack, Patrick

Lang, Ian

Couchman, James

Latham, Michael

Cran, James

Lawrence, Ivan

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lee, John (Pendle)

Curry, David

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Day, Stephen

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Dicks, Terry

Lightbown, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Lilley, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Dunn, Bob

Lord, Michael

Durant, Tony

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Dykes, Hugh

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Emery, Sir Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Evennett, David

Maclean, David

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fallon, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Favell, Tony

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Madel, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Malins, Humfrey

Fishburn, John Dudley

Mans, Keith

Fookes, Dame Janet

Maples, John

Forman, Nigel

Marland, Paul

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Forth, Eric

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Freeman, Roger

Mates, Michael

French, Douglas

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gale, Roger

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gardiner, George

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Gill, Christopher

Mills, Iain

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mitchell, Sir David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Moate, Roger

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Monro, Sir Hector

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Gregory, Conal

Morrison, Sir Charles

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Grist, Ian

Mudd, David

Ground, Patrick

Neale, Gerrard

Grylls, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Neubert, Michael

Hague, William

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Nicholls, Patrick

Hanley, Jeremy

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hannam, John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

Norris, Steve

Harris, David

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Haselhurst, Alan

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hayward, Robert

Page, Richard

210

Paice, James

Stevens, Lewis

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Patnick, Irvine

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Pawsey, James

Stokes, Sir John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Sumberg, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Summerson, Hugo

Porter, David (Waveney)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Powell, William (Corby)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Price, Sir David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Raffan, Keith

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rathbone, Tim

Thorne, Neil

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Thornton, Malcolm

Rhodes James, Robert

Thurnham, Peter

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Tracey, Richard

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Tredinnick, David

Rost, Peter

Trotter, Neville

Rowe, Andrew

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Ryder, Richard

Waldegrave, Hon William

Sackville, Hon Tom

Waller, Gary

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Walters, Sir Dennis

Sayeed, Jonathan

Ward, John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Warren, Kenneth

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Watts, John

Shelton, Sir William

Wheeler, John

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Widdecombe, Ann

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wilkinson, John

Sims, Roger

Wilshire, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wolfson, Mark

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wood, Timothy

Speller, Tony

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Yeo, Tim

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Squire, Robin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Stern, Michael

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Crowther, Stan

Alton, David

Cryer, Bob

Anderson, Donald

Cummings, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cunningham, Dr John

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Darling, Alistair

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Dewar, Donald

Beckett, Margaret

Dixon, Don

Bell, Stuart

Dobson, Frank

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Douglas, Dick

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

Duffy, A. E. P.

Blair, Tony

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Boateng, Paul

Eadie, Alexander

Boyes, Roland

Eastham, Ken

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Buchan, Norman

Fatchett, Derek

Buckley, George J.

Faulds, Andrew

Callaghan, Jim

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

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

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Fisher, Mark

Canavan, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Flynn, Paul

Cartwright, John

Foster, Derek

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Fyfe, Maria

Clay, Bob

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Clelland, David

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

George, Bruce

Coleman, Donald

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Corbett, Robin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Gould, Bryan

Cousins, Jim

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cox, Tom

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

211

Grocott, Bruce

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Brien, William

Heffer, Eric S.

O'Neill, Martin

Henderson, Doug

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hinchliffe, David

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Parry, Robert

Home Robertson, John

Patchett, Terry

Hood, Jimmy

Pendry, Tom

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Pike, Peter L.

Hoyle, Doug

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Prescott, John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Radice, Giles

Illsley, Eric

Randall, Stuart

Ingram, Adam

Redmond, Martin

Janner, Grevilie

Richardson, Jo

Johnston, Sir Russell

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Robertson, George

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rogers, Allan

Kennedy, Charles

Rooker, Jeff

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kirkwood, Archy

Rowlands, Ted

Lamond, James

Ruddock, Joan

Leighton, Ron

Salmond, Alex

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Sedgemore, Brian

Lewis, Terry

Sheerman, Barry

Litherland, Robert

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Livingstone, Ken

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Livsey, Richard

Sillars, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Skinner, Dennis

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

Loyden, Eddie

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

McAllion, John

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

McAvoy, Thomas

Snape, Peter

McCartney, Ian

Soley, Clive

Macdonald, Calum A.

Spearing, Nigel

McFall, John

Steinberg, Gerry

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Stott, Roger

McKelvey, William

Strang, Gavin

McLeish, Henry

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McNamara, Kevin

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McWilliam, John

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Turner, Dennis

Marek, Dr John

Vaz, Keith

Marshall, David (Srieffleston)

Wall, Pat

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Wallace, James

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Walley, Joan

Martlew, Eric

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Maxton, John

Wareing, Robert N.

Meacher, Michael

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Meale, Alan

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Michael, Alun

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Wilson, Brian

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Winnick, David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Morgan, Rhodri

Worthington, Tony

Morley, Elliot

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mullin, Chris

Tellers for the Noes:

Murphy, Paul

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.

Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the House [3rd May] be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall for the purposes of paragraph 13 of the Order [3rd May] be regarded as proceedings on an allotted day.
(2) The Order in which those proceedings are to be taken shall be Lords Amendment 18, Lords Amendment 25, Lords Amendment 80, Lords Amendment 1, Lords Amendments 66 and 67, Lords Amendment 81, Lords Amendments 83 to 88, Lords Amendment 2, Lords Amendment 40, Lords Amendment 44, Lords Amendment 62, Lords Amendment
212
65, Lords Amendment 92, Lords Amendments 68 to 78, Lords Amendment 9, Lords Amendment 47, Lords Amendment 52, Lords Amendments 56 to 61, Lords Amendments 63 and 64, Lords Amendment 79, Lords Amendment 91, Lords Amendments 93 and 94, Lords Amendment 3, Lords Amendments 5 to 8, Lords Amendments 11 to 13, Lords Amendments 20 and 21, Lords Amendments 26 to 29, Lords Amendments 48 to 51, Lords Amendments 53 to 55, Lords Amendment 4, Lords Amendment 17, Lords Amendment 39, Lords Amendment 10, Lords Amendments 14 and 15, Lords Amendment 82, Lords Amendments 89 and 90, Lords Amendment 16, Lords Amendment 19, Lords Amendments 22 to 24, Lords Amendments 41 to 43, Lords Amendments 30 to 38, and Lords Amendments 45 and 46.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the Order [3rd May], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the end of such period beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order as is of the length specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE

Proceedings

Lords Amendments

Length of period

Nos. 18,25,80, 1,66,67,81,83 to 88, 2, 40, 44, 62, 65, 92, 68 to 78,9,47, 52, 56 to 61, 63, 64 79, 91, 93and 94.

One hour and thirty minutes.

Nos. 3, 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20,21, 26 to 29,48 to 51, 53 to 55, 4, 17, 39, 10, 14, 15, 82, 89, 90, 16, 19, 22 to 24 and 41 to 43.

Two hours.

Nos. 30 to 36.

Two hours and thirty minutes.

Remaining Lords Amendments.

Three hours.

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings
4.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to put it on record
214
that we are left with 15 minutes in which to consider 40 amendments to this important legislation. When he opened the debate, the Minister said that many of these amendments are technical, but the first group that we are about to debate contains some significant ones, including those relating to special needs. The system does not allow Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies adequate time in which to debate these vital issues. I want that clearly on the record. I ask you whether there is any way in which we can remedy this ridiculous situation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Let me answer the last point first. There is no way in which I can make any alterations. I am bound by the resolutions of the House. Secondly, the hon. Lady is correct to say that we had very little time. These points of order are taking time from these important amendments.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Within the rules of the House, how is it possible for us to make an adequate protest against the fact that Scottish National party members were deliberately kept off the Committee considering this Bill, and that even the SNP Member who did serve on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), was not allowed to participate in the guillotine debate? Ours was the only party not allowed to participate in the debate—not because we do not want to, but because the House does not allow us in.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No hon. Member is being deliberately kept off, and the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House when we should be moving on to consider important amendments.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask whether this contemptuous treatment of Scottish business and the debating of such important amendments in such a ridiculously short time was agreed through the usual channels?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The House has come to a conclusion on this resolution. At this stage, that cannot be changed.

Orders of the Day
  Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill
    Clause 1

      DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAINTAIN SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS
      Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 9, line 32, leave out "this section" and insert—
      "section 19(2) of this Act;
      (aa) having regard to paragraphs 2 to 4 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, specify the respective numbers of parent members, staff members and appointed members who it is proposed should (with the person for the time being head teacher) constitute the board of management which succeeds the interim board of management;"
      5.11 pm
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos 25 and 80.
      Mr. Lang: I can tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the Opposition said at an early stage in the Committee that they were looking to spending 120 to 130 hours debating the Bill, but we have spent about 160 hours doing so. It is not the fault of Her Majesty's Government that the Bill has not been scrutinised in full detail in all its clauses.
      All these amendments deal with the principle of ensuring a majority of elected parents on the board of management. There is a little history to amendment No. 80, which I shall need to explain to the House. However, so as not to keep the House in suspense, I shall reveal the end of the story straight away: this amendment was introduced by the Government in direct response to pressure from the Opposition.
      The Bill as it was when first introduced provided that, when a school became self-governing, the board of management should have the same number of parent and staff members as has the school board; that the head teacher was to become a full member and there was to be an increase in the number of appointed members. That meant that the parents would have lost their overall majority.
      It was quite clear in Standing Committee that there was a will on all sides to preserve the parental majority as it will be on school boards. Indeed the Opposition moved an amendment to that effect. In response to that, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) undertook in Committee to consider whether boards of management should have an in-built parental majority, just as school boards will have. He also undertook to reconsider the provisions for the term of office of appointed members, a point on which the Committee did in fact make some amendment to the Bill. Amendments were made on Report reflecting the outcome of our reconsideration of
      216
      these matters; and since there was no opportunity to explain them at the time, I think it will help the House if I do so now. They provide the necessary context for the understanding of this group of amendments.
      Although we needed little persuasion that there should be a parental majority, we do also attach importance to the provision that a board of management should have some increase over the school board in its outside representation. A board of management will have greater responsibilities than any school board can have; and it is likely to want to call on a wider range of experience among its members. However, if we increase the number of outside members and still want to have a parental majority there obviously has to be provision for an increase in parent members. That would be necessary in any case because the head teacher becomes a full member of the board of management, and that in itself would remove the parental majority.
      Then a question arises. If extra places have to be filled by election, when will be the most convenient time to hold the election? Should one hold it during the run-up to self-governing status, or immediately after? This led us into a further consideration. If elections are going to have to be held in any case, it seemed to us that, for wider reasons, it would make sense simply to have new elections for the whole board. The change from being a school board to being a board of management is a considerable one, and individuals who may have been happy to serve on a school board, and even to support a proposal for self-governing status, will not necessarily want personally to take on the extra commitment and responsibility involved in serving on the board of management of a self-governing school.
      It might also seem logical to get this new board elected and put in place as soon as possible after the decision has been taken that the school is to become self-governing. However we concluded on balance that this might complicate the transitional period unduly. There will be much to do for the management of any school during that period, in taking over from the education authority and preparing for the assumption of full responsibility, and it would be better not to add to that by a requirement to conduct elections and hand over to a new board.
      Therefore, we concluded that the best and most convenient option will be to have the school board continue unchanged right through to the point where the school becomes self-governing. At that point, the school board will be incorporated as an interim board of management, and its duty will be to conduct elections to the board of management proper as quickly as possible and then to hand over to the newly elected board, whose members will in turn select the appointed members of that board. The board of management will thus be, in its composition, a slightly expanded school board.
      That is the gist of the amendments which we tabled for Report and which were incoporated into the Bill as it left this House. Among them was this one which now appears as amendment No. 80 in today's list. It is the key amendment which discharges my hon. Friend's undertaking. However it was omitted by printer's error from the Notice Paper on the day of the Report debate, although it had been tabled and had appeared on the Notice Paper for the previous day. It was necessary therefore to table it again in another place, and that is how it comes to appear today as amendment No. 80.

      217
      I should have liked to explain to the House in more detail the implications of Lords amendments Nos. 80 and 25, but as the time for consideration is short, it would be sensible for me to finish—
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Lang: I would rather not, because I am trying to save the time of the House. It would be sensible if I brought my remarks to an end.
      Mr. John McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing): this is ridiculous. Ignorant comments from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on Scottish education only exacerbate an already bad situation and increase the frustrations that the Opposition feel.
      We are pleased that the Minister has taken the point that we made in Committee about the parental majority. He is right to say that we made that point. When the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 was going through its stages in the House, we were against parental majority. We are for it under the provisions of this Bill, for the simple reason that schools dealt with under the School Boards (Scotland) Act still retain a link with the local authority, whereas for the schools dealt with in this Bill, that link is destroyed. For that reason, we think that a parental majority will enhance the democratic process of governing the schools.
      The Government have not adequately answered the question of what constitutes the community and what constitutes the appointed members. As it stood, the number of community members or parents could be overruled by appointed members. We are concerned about the wishes of parents. During the recess, I visited every primary and secondary school and spoke to the parents of children in almost every one of those schools. I got the message that there was not much interest in the Bill's provisions. I told these parents that the Government were interested in doing their business by stealth. They have a public agenda and a private agenda: the public one says that they are interested in parents, while the private one sets out their naked ideological objectives.
      If the Government were interested in parents, they would have consulted parents in Scotland. The hallmark of the Bill is the lack of consultation with parents or public representatives. It is sad that the Under-Secretary who was responsible for the Bill has moved on, because he will not get his comeuppance. He has left it in the hands of his friends.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: He will lose his seat.
      Mr. McFall: Yes, perhaps he will. He has left the Bill in the hands of the Minister.
      I visited Dallas in Texas two years ago and looked at schools there. I was taken round many fine magnet schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stirling would say that that is the objective for Scotland. Yes, the schools were good, but that afternoon I also went to see the supervisor or superintendent of education in Dallas and said that it was true that the city had good magnet schools in literature, business and science and so on. However, when I asked him about the attendance figures for Dallas, he said that the official drop-out rate—that is what it is called in America—was 45 per cent., but unofficially the figure was 55 per cent.
      218
      That shows that, if the Government go ahead with the Bill and ignore the parental majority, they will be saying that they do not care about the majority of the population, only about the minority. That is what happened in Dallas. That view is underlined in the Government's philosophy towards education and society in general. That is why there has been such an outcry in Scotland against the provisions, and that is why we do not see the Bill as a liberating or enabling measure—that is just a kid-on from Conservative Members—because if anything, it is a centralising Bill.
      Ultimately, the Secretary of State has all the aces. In this capacity he is nothing more than a Stalinist, because he is taking exactly—[Interruption.] No, I never called the hon. Member for Stirling a Stalinist—I shall leave that to other people—but this is a centralising Bill. The Secretary of State will have all the aces. He will say what each and every school can do. The Secretary of State is showing his naked ideology by looking at Scottish education and saying that, although local authorities may have served their communities well, because they are non-Tory, they will have to go.
      Scottish education and the interests of our young people are being sacrificed for those narrow ends. That is the message that we must put across, even at this late stage. It would have been one thing if the Secretary of State and his Ministers had consulted the public, but there has been absolutely no consultation. That is why the Bill will be thoroughly rejected. The only chink of light is that the Secretary of State was good enough—if one can call it that—to retain the parental majority on the board, thus enhancing, or rather keeping some, democracy and community involvement.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not only do we have the farce of a timetable being forced on Scottish Members of Parliament as a result of the hypocrisy of Conservative Members, but the new Minister at the Scottish Office, who is responsible for education, is not prepared to allow one hon. Member who served at length on the Committee and who spoke at length, moving many amendments—which is more than the Minister did—to intervene to ask a simple and straightforward question.
      Mr. Lang rose—
      Mrs. Ewing: It is only because of that that I have to rise to put that question to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The Minister has spoken at length about the procedures, resolutions and ballots, but I wish to pursue him on the issue to which the Secretary of State gave voice on Report. Will there be encouragement from the Scottish Office for a moratorium between the establishment of a school board and the possible holding of ballots on opting out? The Secretary of State suggested that he would not encourage that procedure in the first one or two years of the establishment of a school board. When the Minister replies, please will he make clear the time scale that we are talking about? Will school boards be able to start that procedure almost immediately, or will there be a moratorium?
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: Amendment No. 80, on which the Minister has asked us to focus as the most important in this group, sums up much of the deception underlying the whole Bill. The amendment purports to enhance or to increase democracy in the Bill,

      219
      but we know that the Bill is nothing less than a diminution of local democracy and of genuine community control over our schools. As my hon. Friends have said, that is what the Bill is about.
      The Minister said that once schools became selfgoverning—I believe that I am quoting him—they would be "just as much a public and a community asset as before". How can that be when the Government are removing any powers, control or influence that the community may have over such schools when they become self-governing? If there is no community control and no community say, how can the community influence community use of the new self-governing schools?
      What is happening is not an enhancement of local democracy, but a reduction in local democracy because communities are being stripped of any democratic outlet or expression that they have over the conduct, future, or fate of self-governing schools.
      The bizarre concept underlying the amendment, and, indeed the whole Bill, is that, in some way, the local education authorities do not represent the democratic will of their communities, that they stifle or distort the will of the people and what they want in the schools in their local education authority area. That bizarre concept—that local education authorities are somehow undemocratic but that the new self-governing schools will be democratic—is absolutely bizarre—
      It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then designated Lords amendments Nos. 65 and 94 as appearing to her to involve questions of privilege.
      Lords amendments Nos. 65 and 94 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 25, 80, 1, 66, 67, 81, 83 to 88, 2,40, 44,62,92,68 to 78,9, 47, 52, 56 to 61, 63, 64,79,91, and 93 agreed to.

    Clause 13

      INITIATION OF PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS
      Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 6, line 24, after "board" insert
      "(a "first resolution")" to hold such a ballot and confirm that decision by a resolution (a "second resolution") passed at a meeting of the board held not less than twenty-eight days, nor more than forty-two days, after that at which the first resolution was passed".
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20, 21, 26 to 29, 48 to 51 and 53 to 55.
      Mr. Lang: The amendment requires a school board to pass two separate resolutions, the second in confirmation of the first, before it may call a ballot of parents on self-governing status, with a period of between four and six
      220
      weeks between the two resolutions. The other amendments in this group are all consequential, to deal with references later in the Bill to a resolution of a school board calling a ballot. Immediately on passing the first resolution the board must, under the terms of subsections (6) and (7) of clause 13, inform the education authority and, where the school is a denominational school, the denominational body concerned.
      I said something about this amendment in speaking on the timetable motion earlier, and I should like to enlarge on it now. I note that the Opposition moved a rather similar amendment in Standing Committee. They did not develop their reasons for it at the time—indeed, they subsequently withdrew it—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), quite properly in the circumstances, dismissed it with a brief explanation of why we did not think it necessary to follow the English legislation in this particular. He stressed the desirability of keeping the opting-out procedure as short as possible, and I think that it has been accepted on all sides that at any rate the procedure should not be unduly drawn out.
      A good deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then, however. Immediately after that amendment was disposed of, the Committee moved on to a discussion, which eventually was quite wide ranging, of the whole procedure leading up to a ballot, and particularly about how voters in a ballot should be made aware of the significance of what they would be voting for or against. There were, for example, amendments discussed on the lines that voters should be given a statement of the views of the staff at the school or that they should be given a kind of prospectus by the school board, outlining how the school would be managed, and under what policies, if it became self-governing.
      I think that it is fair to say that those debates served to inform everyone's thinking, on both sides of the House and outside Parliament as well. Amendments were made both in Committee and on Report which are relevant to this matter. My hon. Friend accepted an amendment from the Opposition which was designed to guarantee that voters were given the information that they would reasonably require in order to make a decision in the ballot and, in response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) we introduced a new clause on report, which is now clause 17, designed to ensure that a local authority cannot use its superior financial resources to swamp the voters with propaganda, and to provide that the school board, if it is so minded, shall have a reasonable sum available to it to promote the case in favour of self-governing status.
      5.30 pm
      The amendment was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Carnegy of Lour, with Labour support, in another place and was also seen as relevant to the same general concern when it was discussed in another place. The House may therefore find it helpful if I set the amendment in the context of how we see a ballot being conducted.
      It is clear that when a school board decides to call a ballot, the matter will instantly become news. There is no possibility of the ballot being, as it were, conducted by stealth. Obviously the parents must be informed, but even before that, the education authority must be informed as soon as the board's resolution is taken. Likewise, the staff at the school—even if they do not receive a formal

      221
      communication from the board, as one would expect them to do—will hear of the decision from their representatives on the board.
      Both the education authority and the staff will certainly have views on the matter. They will want to make them known to the board but, even more, they will want to publicise them and communicate them direct to the parent voters. Those actions will occur irrespective of whether we legislate for them. At the same time, the school board will itself almost certainly want to put its case to its constituents. Even if it did not do so, the parents would surely demand to know what their board had in mind.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Perhaps the Minister will now answer the question I asked earlier about a moratorium between the establishment of a school board and the possibility of moving towards opting out.
      Mr. Lang: The provisions of the Bill are for no moratorium between the establishment of a school board and the starting of the procedure towards opting out; it can set in motion the procedure, if it thinks it appropriate when it is constituted. But that process, as I have been describing and could describe in greater detail, is likely to take several months before reaching a conclusion.
      As I was saying, the school hoard will almost certainly want to put its case to its constituents. Even if it did not do so, the parents would surely demand to know what their board had in mind. There are provisions under the School Boards (Scotland) Act under which a board is required to communicate with parents as often as seems to be necessary about matters which are its concern; and there is provision also for parents to requisition an open meeting with the board. So the machinery is there.
      We plan shortly to issue guidance to school boards, in addition to the general circular which we have already issued in draft, specifically on the details of the procedure for acquiring self-governing status. We shall reinforce there the message that it is desirable that a board should be as open as possible with parents about what it intends. In particular, we shall encourage boards to give parents the opportunity to express their views and discuss the issue at open meetings before the ballot is held. That, we think, is by far the most effective way of ensuring that parents get a chance to understand what is involved when they come to cast their votes.
      Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to address the House when there is not on the Government Benches another Member who represents a Scottish constituency?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair to resolve.
      Mr. Barry Porter: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My father is a member of the Liverpool Scottish. Will that do?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Lang: We believe that the process that I have described is by far the most effective way of ensuring that parents get a chance to understand what is involved when they come to cast their votes.
      Mr. McFall: The Minister has spoken at length about consulting parents. The message that I am getting is that,
      222
      even if parents pass a vote of no confidence in a school board, that board need not take any notice. Until school boards have some accountability, there will be no faith in this legislation.
      Mr. Lang: As the proposition about opting out would have to be put to the parents in a ballot, the parents would have an opportunity to express their view clearly and decisively in the context of that process.
      In that context, the procedure required by the amendment will be a positive help. It guarantees that, in addition to the period that must elapse between a decision to ballot and the holding of the ballot, there will be at least four weeks' of public debate on the issue. In addition, at the end of that period the board is given an opportunity to reconsider its position, in the light of the feedback that it will have had from the education authority, from the staff at the school and from the parents who elected it. At that point the board will be free to decide whether it still wants to go ahead with a ballot, and it will have to take a positive decision, ratifying the earlier one, if it still means to go ahead.
      The amendment will be wholly beneficial to the process from any point of view, and I commend it to the House.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Like others, I have questions about the balloting of parents. The Minister said that parents would be informed—by methods that have yet to be revealed. He agreed that parents' meetings would be the ideal places for such information to be given. How will parents be notified? Is it possible that notifications of such meetings, or even the ballot papers, will lie at the bottom of school bags along with crusts of bread and empty crisp bags for perhaps several weeks? If the Minister has more precise proposals, will he tell us about them?
      Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood): I support the Minister's remarks and wish at the outset to thank him for including clause 17 in the revised Bill. He will recall that, when I intervened in his speech in the guillotine debate, I expressed concern about sone of the experiences in England and Wales and said that such experiences had not filled one with confidence that the local authority would not use its overbearing power to intimidate—I used the word "bludgeon"—parents. The Minister has shown the Government's commitment to parental choice.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that he will not allow to happen in Scotland what has been going on in England. For example, The Birmingham Daily News wrote:
      "Opt-out school banned by city council"
      and under that headline noted:
      "More than 1,000 Birmingham youngsters have been banned from using the city's libraries because their school has opted out".
      Such disgraceful behaviour must not be repeated in Scotland.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the attention of the House because it illustrates the pitfalls that can face schools when the local authority seeks to be overbearing.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for two English

      223
      Members—who are interfering in our proceedings, anyway—to discuss a purely English matter on what is a Scottish subject?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. All voices will be heard.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I remind Opposition Members that although they may accuse us Englishmen of interfering in Scottish affairs, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) could be seen rushing down the corridor to participate in and vote on English matters.
      Mr. John McAllion: I left to take part in a Division on the Local Government and Housing Bill, a measure which affects my constituents in Scotland as much as it affects the people of England.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman could not resist the temptation to vote on matters concerning England and Wales.
      The Minister has shown the Government's commitment to ensuring that both sides of the argument on this matter are fully explored, and I can think of no fairer system that could be introduced in this legislation. Let us not forget that the Bill is permissive. It imposes no statutory requirement on schools in Scotland to opt out. It is not draconian. It enables parents to reach a decision for themselves. It shows a genuine concern by the Government for parental choice.
      The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that we were concerned with the wishes of parents. Although the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) initially described as excellent the Strathclyde regional council's document, that document was widely rejected by the Labour party because it flew in the face of Labour's policy, which was enunciated only a month later, and that was comprehensives all round. It did not seem to wish to see the diversity of education provision in Scotland.
      We are left with confusion on the Socialist Benches. Although the Opposition apparently welcome the amendment, the thrust of the Labour party's policy on Scottish education has been to return to the same grey uniform policy of "Take it or leave it. We the politicians know best", which was the policy that it brought before the nation in the 1960s.
      Mr. Sillars: Irrespective of party divisions, I, like most other Scottish Opposition Members, am sick and tired of hearing lectures from people who are grossly ignorant of the history and development of Scottish education and its achievements.
      Ayrshire decided to move to a comprehensive system at the same time as Enfield in England, but the experience was different. There were major problems south of the border, but there were no major problems north of the border, where the comprehensive scheme was implemented and has been a shining success ever since.
      We in Scotland agree with comprehensive education, because it fits in with the egalitarian nature of the body politic in Scotland. If Conservative Members from south of the border are interested in Scottish education, they should visit our comprehensive schools to see the variety of education provided for children and the considerable
      224
      stimulus given to them during their school life. They will see the degree of commitment that has existed for generations among Scottish teachers because they believe in the philosophy that underwrites Scottish education. The only time that that has been broken was during the dispute between the teachers' unions and the minority Government represented by the Minister. He did more damage to Scottish education in a few months than Attila the Hun could have done if he had come over and roamed about the place.
      Unfortunately, we are under the pressure of a guillotine, but will the Minister tell me about amendment No. 3? I want to know whether I am correct in saying that a school without a school board cannot opt out. It is a great tragedy that we have reached this late stage before some hon. Members have had an opportunity to ask Ministers for elucidation.
      Most Scottish people would like the television in the Chamber to be live tonight so they could see that they are reasonably well represented on the Opposition Benches. They would also see that at one time there were no Scottish Tory Members present. There are now two—the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). More importantly, I would like the television cameras to be on when the Division bell goes and the Conservative Benches begin to fill up with English Tories passing through into the Division Lobby to vote us down irrespective of our point of view, even though we represent the majority opinion in Scotland on this measure.
      The position is becoming a farce. The Government will pay heavily for that farce when the House is televised and Scottish people do not need to rely on us to tell them that we can win all the arguments but that we are overwhelmed by the arrogant and ignorant English Conservative Members who do not give a click of their fingers for the Scottish people. However, their day of reckoning will come.
      I was pleased that the Minister nodded when I asked that key question. We should spread the word throughout Scotland that, if there are no school boards, there can be no opting out. The Government have inserted the necessity for a school board because their ultimate objective in Scottish education is the privatisation of some schools. There must be a mechanism to take us into the interim phase of school boards and opting out and then on to the the final phase of the objectives set down by the ideologue, the chairman of the Tory party in Scotland the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
      We should tell the Scottish people and parents and those who will be parents that, if they want to prevent the ultimate privatisation of our education system, they should not go down the road of the school boards.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. McAllion: The last English Conservative Member who spoke—the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth)—finished his peroration with the observation that the Labour party argued that politicians know best. That could not be further from the truth. However, it could not be more apposite to describe the way in which the Tory party in Scotland operates. It has been overwhelmingly rejected by popular opinion in

      225
      Scotland, but the Tory Government continue to push every one of their prejudices down the throats of the Scottish people, irrespective of what those people think.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Bill says that it is the parents who will decide? The Secretary of State is not imposing on Scottish parents the requirement that they shall move to self-governing status.
      Mr. McAllion: Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a ruse on the part of Conservative Members to continue to argue that this is permissive, not statutory, legislation. The Government would not impose statutorily on schools within education authority control a requirement that they should all move to direct control by the Scottish Office. If they did that, they would be treating all the schools the same. The basis of the legislation is that some schools in Scotland will he treated differently from others. That is why it is permissive. It is to allow some schools to opt out, while the rest remain under education authority control. It is designed to allow schools that opt out to be given more capital resources and more revenue resources and to receive more favoured treatment by the Government. That is why the legislation is permissive. No Opposition Members are convinced by the Government's arguments.
      I was interested in the response that the Minister made to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) when she asked whether there could be moratorium on the time between a school board being established and any possibility of that school requesting opting-out status. The Minister said quickly, "No." He said that because those schools are to opt out from August 1990 onwards. If there were to be a two-year moratorium, it would take us beyond the next general election. Thereafter, there would be no possibility of any schools opting out, because the Government will not be in power after 1991 or 1992, and nor will this legislation which they have imposed on the people of Scotland.
      Mr. McFall: On the finances of opted-out schools, my hon. Friend will remember that, in column 237 of the Standing Committee report, I asked the Minister about the finances that would be available to schools for opting out. He told me that the finances would be no more than those presently received from the education authority. However, in The Daily Telegraph, this week there was a report about the opting out of schools in England, where a number had been given more than they had received from the education authority. There were no apologies for that from the Secretary of State for Scotland. They will receive more because privatisation is on the agenda. It is bribery, and nothing else.
      Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is right to describe what is now happening in England—
      Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
      Mr. McAllion: I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, as he has made his own speech.
      The Minister responsible for education expressed concern about the provisions in the Scottish legislation not being as tight as those for England and Wales. The Minister explained that that was why the Government were accepting this group of amendments. I welcome that back-pedalling when I compare it with the position that
      226
      was taken by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in Committee.
      It is refreshing to witness this change of tack and the change in personalities since the Minister of State has taken over responsibility for education. It suggests that he accepts, at least in part, the fundamental argument that was advanced by the Opposition in Committee. We said that, when the Bill left Committee, the way was open for a small clique of parents to hijack school boards and thereafter to hijack hoards of management and to take schools out of education authority control without the approval of the majority of parents with children attending those schools. I am glad that the Minister says now that he wants to ensure that parents properly appreciate what they are voting for. That is something that never concerned the Under-Secretary of State.
      We are told now that, before a ballot takes place, the education authority will have to be informed. Four or six weeks will have to pass before a second resolution is passed by the school board announcing its intention to hold a ballot. The Minister made his intention clear when he said that the education authority and the school board would want to conduct what he said—I took a note of what he said and I may not have recorded his words exactly, but I have the drift of them—would be several weeks of campaigning, with mass publicity, to ensure mass support for whatever proposals came forward from the school board thereafter. I believe that those were the words that the Minister used, and I find them somewhat optimistic.
      When the Minister was questioned about the resources that would be made available to school boards and education authorities to allow them to indulge in mass campaigning on the issue before the parents that would be the subject of the ballot, he was more than vague in his reply. He gave no guarantee that additional resources would be made available to the boards or the authorities to enable them to conduct the campaigns which the hon. Gentleman now says are necessary if ballots are to have any meaning in the context of whether schools should opt out of local education authority control.
      The Minister's position is flawed for another reason. It ignores the secondary importance which is attached in the Bill to ballots of parents. The Minister referred to the outcome of any such ballot as a positive statement of parental opinion. What does he mean by that? Does he mean a clear majority of all those who are entitled to vote in the ballot? We tried again and again to get a ministerial response to that question in Committee, but we remained unsuccessful.
      It remains unclear what the Secretary of State for Scotland will regard as a positive statement of parental opinion. The Minister of State has repeated the statement that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make to those who have chosen to express their vote. There is still the possibility that, after a publicity campaign and a ballot has been held, a clear minority of parents who intended to vote for opting out will be regarded by the Secretary of State as having made a positive statement of parental opinion, thereby allowing the Government to say that the school should opt out of education authority control.
      On 3 May, when we were dealing with the guillotine motion, the Secretary of State made a comment which may be helpful to both sides of the argument. He said that he wanted to ensure the right of local communities to control their school structure, that being one of the finest

      227
      traditions of Scottish education. I think that everyone will agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, nothing in the Bill guarantees that that tradition will continue. It will still be possible for a minority of parents to win a minority vote in a ballot and thereafter to secure the support of the Secretary of State in allowing the school to opt out of education authority control. That is unjust and undemocratic, especially in the context of current Scottish politics.
      I remind the Minister that, since the Bill emerged from Committee, there has been a change of opinion in Scotland. The Scottish people are listening to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling and paying attention to the debate on education in Scotland. The opinion polls show that support for the Labour party in Scotland stands at 55 per cent. while support for the Tories is only 18 per cent. In other words, the Tories have sunk even lower than the depths to which they fell during the 1987 general election. That is because measures of the sort that we are confronted with in the Bill have been forced down the throats of the Scottish people.
      The Scottish people have been denied the Parliaments for which they have voted in successive general elections. They have been denied also the opportunity to vote in elections by a Prime Minister who is now running scared of a stalking horse in the Conservative parliamentary party. At the same time, she is running even more scared of the electorate outside this place. The Scottish people can express their opinion only through opinion polls and local government elections. They have done so again and again and have made it clear that they do not want the legislation that is being introduced by this Government. The democratic voice of the Scottish people has been heard. They do not want the Bill. If the Minister listens to the people of Scotland, he will withdraw it.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has again done the House a service by giving an entirely ignorant description of the history and merits of Scottish education. It is not renowned for its worth because of comprehensivisation: it is renowned because there are few other systems which have more successfully seen parents determined to encourage the education and excellence of their children. If we examine the encyclopaedia of those who have been successful in the world—
      It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the timetable motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20, 21, 26 to 29, 48 to 51, 53 to 55, 4, 17, 39, 10, 14, 15, 82, 89, 90, 16, 19, 22 to 24 and 41 to 43 agreed to.

    Clause 27

      RECURRENT GRANT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
      Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 17, line 22, leave out
      "in implementation of the authority's duty".
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 36.
      Mr. Lang: I am pleased that these amendments have come before us today. They are concerned with technicalities of the financial arrangements for self-governing schools which provide for children with records of needs. But beyond that, they give the House the opportunity to take stock of the totality of the benefits and safeguards which the Bill contains to ensure that no child with special educational needs will be worse off when a school, be it a special school, a mainstream primary school or a secondary school, achieves self-governing status.
      It is true that the Bill as originally presented did not provide specifically for special schools to elect to become self-governing. The problems of doing so, although not insurmountable, appeared difficult and, at that time, it was thought best to defer tackling them immediately. In Committee, however, Back-Bench Members argued persuasively that parents of children at special schools should not be denied opportunities given to others by the Bill—so persuasively, in fact, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) voted for the amendment to include special schools and agreed to introduce further amendments which would support it. Let it not be forgotten that this amendment was tabled by various members of the Committee, and originally by the Opposition, not by the Government. The Government bowed to the wishes of the Committee.
      In making arrangements for recurrent grant for special schools, the changes that we made to the Bill also deal specifically with the provision for children with records of needs who are accommodated in mainstream schools. Mainstream placement of these children is becoming increasingly common and most schools which become self-governing are likely at some time to have such a child on their role.
      The Bill now ensures full funding for the education of recorded children attending self-governing schools. It provides for discussion and exchange of information between the board of a school and the authority so that agreement can be reached on the level of provision to be made and the cost of that provision.
      I have heard it said by the Opposition that when a special school ceases to be under education authority control it will mean that the authority's strategy for special educational needs will be destroyed. But that will not happen. The purpose of the dialogue to which I have referred is precisely to ensure that the self-governing school will continue to play its full part in that strategy. We made it clear that the range of provision for special educational needs is a characteristic of a school which may not be changed except by a ballot of parents and with the consent of the Secretary of State. I assure the House that, save in very exceptional circumstances, I do not envisage that consent being given when the existing level of provision needs to be maintained as an essential element in -the arrangements for special educational needs in the area of the education authority in which the self-governing school is located.

      229
      6 pm
      We do not stop there; we wish schools to be progressive in this area. Schools are therefore given a positive duty to consider improvements in provision for special educational needs. To help that, the Bill provides that an extension of such provision is not to be regarded as a change in the characteristics of the school, and the balloting procedures and so on need not be operated.
      Perhaps the most important aspect of our approach, as set out in clause 27, is the reassurance that it will give to parents of children with learning difficulties. They have been concerned that self-governing schools might be tempted to marginalise special educational needs and divert the resources so urgently needed by their children to other purposes. That cannot happen. The agreement between the authorities and the schools will earmark the resources needed and will guarantee that the identified provision will be made by the school. In essence, priorities for special educational needs will be agreed and implemented.
      Although the Bill will protect this area of expenditure, we have taken steps to ensure that the arrangements are not inflexible. Much has been made by those who do not want special schools to be given the same rights as others of the difficulty that schools and authorities might have when predicting needs. I readily accept that that will not be easy and that a school believed likely to be the most appropriate placement for a recorded child may not ultimately be found to be so. Variations may increase or decrease the level of need at a particular self-governing school.
      We have therefore provided in clause 27(6) for agreements to be varied at any time during the financial year. Once a variation is agreed, the recurrent grant will be altered accordingly. Thus, on a change of plan involving a recorded child, the resources that it was proposed to use at the intended school could be transferred to the school that the child is attending. I hope that the House will agree that the outcome for children with special educational needs has been satisfactory.
      I believe that the provisions now in the Bill show that we should have taken the bull by the horns and included special schools from the outset. Moreover, we have at all stages had a great regard for the special needs of children with learning difficulties, and I am bound to record that in part III of the Bill, as well as in part I, this concern has transcended party barriers. The humane and sensitive—not to mention long—debates that we have had on this issue at all stages of the Bill's progress have shown the work of the House and that of another place in the best of lights.
      Mr. Tony Worthington: These procedures have been outrageous, and this manner of dealing with important Scottish business will be short-lived when vision returns to the Chamber—we cannot wait.
      When I read the report of the Committee's proceedings I was reminded of the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) dealt with hecklers at a meeting who were giving him a bad time. He responded to rent-a-mob by telling them that they had made a grave error by underestimating his insensitivity. That is what has happened with this Bill.
      230
      It never occurred to anyone that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) could possible consider that special schools could appropriately be included in the opting-out procedures. The Opposition will never again underestimate his nastiness. We shall never, for instance, table an amendment stating that we should privatise the air that we breathe, because the hon. Member for Stirling would accept it.
      However, even the hon. Gentleman realised eventually that there was something special about special schools and that it was inappropriate for them to opt out, but he became persuaded in Committee that special schools should be included. This is a valuable service—it is not generally criticised—for a vulnerable group of people and, of necessity, it must be provided over a wide area. I can think of no sort of institution more prone to being taken over by a small group.
      I am sure that all hon. Members have shared my distressing experiences at constituency surgery whenever a new theory of special education comes along. It might come from the Centre for Human Achievement; it might have to do with conductive education; it might be almost anything. The parents of these children have been dealt a raw deal by life and they hanker after any solution that is offered.
      For example, the hon. Member for Stirling paid a single visit to Hungary and came back enthusing about conductive education. I make no comment on the virtues or otherwise of such education; it should be considered, but it is disturbing that, because of a passing fad, a relatively small group of parents might be able to change the nature of a school and impose on it a theory that might turn out to be wrong, with all the consequential difficulties.
      The other reason why the proposal for the opting out of special educational schools is so offensive is that the greatest virtue of special schools lies in their links with the services provided by the local authority and the health board. Needlessly to introduce difficulties into these links might make it difficult to obtain services of occupational therapy, psychology, speech therapy, social work, nursing and transport. The Minister has admitted that this is going to cause greater complexity, and it is a foolish and regrettable step.
      We need to examine the admission criteria of special schools. When there is a parental influence over a school, the parents tend to believe that the school is for children like their own, thereby excluding those who do not fit in. I have heard of schools rejecting wheelchair cases because of the problems that that would present for the other children. Local authorities with strategic responsibility for an area must take a position on this. It is offensive that tiny schools providing services to a large geographical area should be able to distort the services that are available to others in that area. That will destroy the coherence of the services for special educational needs.
      We welcome many of the improvements in the Lords amendments, but I and my hon. Friends want to register our sense of outrage at the way in which this matter has been dealt with and at the sheer insensitivity of the Minister. We shall come to regret the day when this Bill was passed, and we shall have a sense of shame that this clause is part of a Scottish Act.
      Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am pleased to be able to speak on this group of amendments. As those hon. Members

      231
      who served on the Standing Committee will know, because of my background a great deal of my time in Committee was concentrated on special schools and special needs.
      It was with great sadness in Committee that I saw people with special needs become a political football. Whatever the Labour party's faults in picking up an amendment that was originally submitted by the Scottish Parent Teachers Council, The hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who are not present, were more despicable in picking up the amendment and not speaking about special needs, special schools or handicapped children, but playing a neat party political point and ignoring a key issue.
      It is interesting that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) did not follow the example of the Conservative party chairman in England and Wales and ensure that special schools were exempted from the Bill. The Minister was foolhardy to allow himself to be manipulated by his acolytes on the Back Benches into going down that road, which was far in excess of what we have seen from the Department of Education and Science.
      We are dealing with one of the most vulnerable sections of our society. Parents with handicapped children are deeply concerned about their children's education, whether there will be a facility for them within the local community or whether their children will have to be transported elsewhere.
      Children in my constituency have to travel from Elgin to Aberdeen, where they stay for the week and then return home at weekends. To turn this into a party political issue is despicable. It is one of the lowest levels of behaviour that I have ever witnessed in Committee in all the years that I have served in the House.
      The Lords amendments improve the Bill, but they go nowhere near recognising the real concerns of parents. It is unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity to discuss records of need, a matter which was dealt with in amendments Nos. 65 and 72. For the benefit of those organisations which will be reading our deliberations, if they have not heard them, it is worth putting it on the record that those amendments came after about 17 others and were followed by another 30, yet we had all of 10 minutes to discuss the group. Amendments Nos. 65 and 72 were important, but they were not even given an airing in the farcical situation of the guillotine being imposed.
      The Minister should remember that schools establishing units dealing with children with special needs, or trying to involve them in the day-to-day life of the school, will face major expenditure, whether it be for access for the physically handicapped or for the purchase of equipment to deal with a child's handicap. The Minister should read some of the articles produced by the Royal National Institute for the Blind or the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the type of equipment that is needed and how expensive it is. Will additional capital grants be made available to self-governing schools which provide continuing access for handicapped or disabled youngsters? Capital requirements are important.
      If a school becomes self-governing, the danger is that the board of management will decide that it is not worth buying a piece of equipment for a child with a specific handicap and will suggest that the child goes to another
      232
      school. Such a child may then be removed from the family, yet the family is vital to any child with special needs. They, more than any other child, need to return to the love and warmth of their home within the community.
      I am deeply concerned that, whatever reassurances may be mouthed at the Dispatch Box, the guarantee that currently exists that specific handicaps will be provided for, either through special schools or through special capital grants, will no longer be available. I hope that the Minister will comment on that when he replies.
      The Minister said that a great deal of consultation has taken place on how best to cope with various comments made in Committee and on Report. Will he tell us exactly what consultation has taken place with those organisations with specialist knowledge of handicapped children? He will recall that, on Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred to a letter dated 2 June from Mr. Cunliffe, responding to points that I had raised in Committee. That was a Friday, so I presume that it reached the various organisations, most of them voluntary, on Monday 5 June. That letter asked them to reply no later than Tuesday 13 June. Is the Minister talking about a similar pathetic attempt at consultation? I would have much more respect for the Minister if he would list the organisations to whom he spoke.
      What assessment was made of the needs of children in Scotland and of the provision for the training of teachers in what is a highly skilled area? Those teachers have been the most deprived of in-service facilities. There have been cuts throughout the history of remedial education and further cuts in learning support. Fewer and fewer people are being trained in those areas. What consultation did the Minister have with the colleges of education on the provision of teacher training in those areas?
      6.15 pm
      I could raise many other aspects on this group of amendments. I am genuinely angry at the way in which the Government treated the issue in Committee, on Report and in the other place. There has been no genuine commitment to even understand the extent of the problem that exists. I doubt whether the Minister has even read the survey published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys pointing out the number of disabled people who exist in Scotland. I doubt whether real cognisance has been taken of the extent and depth of the problem. He has not given the most vulnerable in our society the real assurance they need, that, under this legislation, facilities for any handicapped child will be available, where possible within their community and, where that is not possible, that at least grants will be made available to help parents when residential education is needed.
      I am not convinced that the Government have taken those points on board to any great extent. I shall support the amendments, but with much concern and reticence, because they do not go anywhere near meeting the needs that exist.
      Mr. McAllion: I share the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about the way in which the matter was dealt with in Committee. The consideration of special education should not descend into petty party-political point-scoring as it did in Committee. It is regrettable that, in introducing the amendments, the Minister continued the tradition set by the hon. Member

      233
      for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) of trying to turn this into inter-party political bickering. The matter deserves much more serious consideration.
      Sometimes the Minister and his hon. Friends give the impression that they have decided to allow special schools to opt out of education authority control, not because that would be best for the children who attend such schools but simply as a means of embarrassing the Labour party over the way in which some amendments were tabled in Committee. That is reprehensible. It is something that we might have expected from the hon. Member for Stirling, but I did not expect it from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). I hope that when he replies he will apologise for giving the impression that he is continuing to play party politics with special education.
      Will the Minister deal with the important strategy that is pursued by education authorities in making provision for special education? When I was first elected to Tayside regional council, its policy was to send all blind children to the Royal Blind school in Edinburgh. That posed serious problems for parents: from the age of five, their children were expected to leave their homes in Dundee and stay in Edinburgh between Monday and Friday, returning only at weekends. The parents therefore formed a campaign group called Sight. Having lobbied local councillors and the education authority, they gradually succeeded in obtaining provision for their children. Now a special unit provides primary education for blind children in a Dundee school; a similar unit provides them with secondary education.
      If the Minister's interpretation of the amendments is correct, I assume that it will be possible for such a special unit to opt out and to set up its own provision, parallel with that offered by the education authority. If that is so, it should be resisted: owing to the number of blind children attending the Dundee units, it would be extremely wasteful to duplicate such provision.
      The Minister said that the Secretary of State for Scotland will intervene to ensure that such provision as I have described will remain. I trust that it will not be possible for those units to opt out, and that the needs of all children requiring special education in my area will continue to be met by the education authority. I hope that all the resources that the authority requires will be provided and integrated to ensure that the needs of children come before those of any political prejudice about opting out.
      Mrs. Ray Michie: Although I believe that it is vital to cater for children with special educational needs, it is entirely inappropriate to deal with special schools in the context of self-governing status. The Government should not have included clause 27 in the Bill. There is no basic demand for self-governing status in the special schools, and it is significant that fewer parents have been taking up positions on school boards. That reflects not a lack of interest on their part, but the close and intimate links that already exist between parents and staff in special schools. Parents, on the whole, have overwhelming confidence in the management and administration of such schools. The Government have placed an unacceptable burden on parents who already spend many hours caring for their children. The uncertainty created by the Bill will make it extremely
      234
      difficult for a local authority to provide special education on the basis of a planned system, and to allocate funding where it is required.
      As for conductive education, although I welcomed the Health Minister's support for the sending of children to the Peto institute in Hungary, many physiotherapists and speech therapists—who had tried for years to obtain resources to give those children intensive therapy—are astonished and dismayed. They are deeply hurt, and feel that the Government have dismissed their years of effort.
      Will the special schools have to buy in services from the NHS? I fear that what has been built up as an integrated team service is likely to become fragmented and destabilised, as have so many other services—particularly the NHS—following the Government's actions.
      Mr. Lang: There is relatively little time for me to reply, but I shall try to cover at least some of the points that have been made.
      Following what has been said by some Opposition Members, I think it appropriate to put into perspective the circumstances in which the Bill came to be amended. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) put something of a gloss on the Opposition's behaviour. In England, there is no provision for special schools to opt out, and the Scottish Bill originally provided for an option for regulation to allow it at a later date. However, the Opposition simultaneously tabled two sets of amendments, one designed to bring the Scottish position into line with the Education Reform Act 1988, and the other—sponsored, I understand, by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council—to include special schools in the entitlement to opt out from the outset.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) added his name to those amendments—which strikes me as entirely proper, as he supported them. That led to the debate, as a result of which the view of the Committee prevailed, and it was decided to make the change. Surely that is far from being a reprehensible or party-political approach to what is indeed a serious issue. In my view, the issues concerning special educational needs—which are difficult and sensitive, and to which Conservative Members attach great importance—have been debated not only sensitively, but thoroughly and well.
      It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      MR. SPEAKER then designated Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36 as appearing to him to involve questions of privilege.
      Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
      Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 34 agreed to.

    Clause 30

      CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS OF SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOL
      Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 20, line 19, after "board" insert
      "held, subject to subsection (1A) below, not less than five years after the incorporation date".
      Mr. Lang: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 38, in page 20, line 23, at end insert—
      "(1A) With the prior written consent of the Secretary of State a motion for such a resolution as is mentioned in subsection (1) above may be determined at a meeting of the board of management held at a date earlier than subsection (1) above would require.".
      Mr. Lang: The amendments prevent the board of management of a self-governing school from initiating the procedures in clause 30 to change the characteristics of the school for a period of at least five years from the incorporation of the board unless it has the prior consent of the Secretary of State. They give precise expression to our stated policy, which is, in a nutshell, that the change to self-governing status would itself be change enough for an y school to absorb, without its having to contemplate further major organisational change shortly afterwards. There must, of course, be provision for the exceptional case: for example, population movement in a locality could radically affect demand for a particular school. That is covered by amendment No. 38. It avoids the defect of an otherwise similar amendment, which was rightly rejected by my hon. Friend in Committee.
      Clause 30 seems to have received more attention than any other clause in the Bill. Let me say something about how we see it working, particularly in the light of the amendments. It should first be said—although it ought to be obvious—that it is essential to provide some means by which a school can adapt its organisation to changing circumstances. That applies in the public and private sectors equally. An independent school is governed by the rules of the marketplace; it must identify a demand that it can meet, and that is sufficient to ensure that it attracts enough pupils to remain financially viable. It is free to adapt its organisation accordingly.
      On the other side of the fence, an education authority is a public provider, with a responsibility to ensure that there is adequate school provision for the geographical area that it covers. To do that, it too must be free to close schools, to open new ones and to reorganise and adapt those that continue under its management.
      The self-governing school stands somewhere between the two. It is a free-standing institution and, in that respect, is like an independent school. It remains part of the public sector, however, and, on that account, must be subject to some control over any major changes that it proposes in the range or character of its provision. However, it would be absurd if a self-governing school were, alone among schools, to be prevented by statute from ever changing its characteristics.
      Control over a school is twofold. First, a board of management cannot just come to the Secretary of State and, so to speak, do a private deal with him to get its scheme of government amended. It has to obtain support in a ballot of parents and then publish its proposals. Only then can it go to the Secretary of State and ask him to determine whether it is to be allowed to change its status.
      6.30 pm
      Secondly, the Secretary of State, by virtue of another amendment to the clause, has to take account of the implications of any proposed change for the education authority's own provision in the area. In other words, he is precluded from considering the self-governing school's
      236
      stated case in total isolation. He has to look at it as part of the pattern of public provision for the area—which, after all, is what it is.
      So much for statute. I might add that it would run against the grain of the Government's policy that any school in the public sector should close its door to a whole class or category of parents. That would be a denial of choice, whereas we are seeking to maximise choice.
      All sorts of fears have been expressed, including the fear that self-governing schools would become, in one way or another, selective—academically, socially or on religious grounds. I do not know how far these fears have been artifically stoked up, but, whether they are genuine or not, I do not believe that they are well founded.
      Parents who look to self-governing schools to provide an exclusive haven of any sort are likely to be disappointed. We have specifically provided that the right of a parent to have his child admitted to a self-governing school shall be the same as his right to send the child to the education authority school of his choice.
      As for the question of exclusion on religious grounds, which has been raised from time to time, it is a general provision of the law—and has been so in Scotland since 1872—that any public school shall be open to any child, regardless of religious affiliation. That goes even for denominational schools at present, and it will apply equally to self-governing schools.
      Finally, I doubt whether in practice there will be much demand from parents with children at self-governing schools for such a change of character, except where it is obviously forced on them by circumstances. The parents will have chosen the school as it is and will value it for the character that it has. Moreover, if the school ceases to attract pupils who want to send their children to that school, it will not remain financially viable for long. Schools will be unable to afford to be exclusive.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister said that it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which a school would wish to change its character, but he said earlier that he thought that one circumstance might be a shift of population. Can the Minister provide more detail about why a shift of population would lead school authorities to believe that they should change not the size but the character of the school?
      Mr. Lang: Circumstances change outwith a school's control. Any school—whether local authority, private sector or self-governing—has to reappraise the surrounding environment, to take account of it and to make whatever alterations might appear to be necessary and appropriate.
      Mr. McFall: The Minister said that schools may find that they are not financially viable. If an opted-out school was not financially viable because it could not attract pupils and the school approached the Government for financial assistance after opting out, what would their response be?
      Mr. Lang: The Government would approach the financial needs of opted-out schools in exactly the same way, using the same criteria, as they approach the financial viability of schools that had not opted out. They would use the same criteria as local authorities use. The hon. Gentleman will find no grounds for complaint on that score.

      237
      Our policy is clear. It has never been the Government's intention that opting out should be a device for changing the character of a school. We have made that clear from the outset. The amendment puts the matter beyond any doubt and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Worthington: The Minister has used mild and gentle words, but I must repeat the words of the hon. Member for Stirling—that this is the most radical and profound change in Scottish education within a generation. How does one square the two statements?
      We welcome the safeguards that the other place has introduced. It will not now be possible to change the character of a school for five years. A Labour Government will have been returned to power before any school can change its character, and we will repeal this measure—make no doubt about it.
      A disturbing feature of the Bill is the funding of opted-out schools. As the Minister said, it is not a question of the Government wanting, by giving schools the option to opt out, to provide more choice. As the hon. Member for Stirling said, the Government want to introduce most radical and profound change. There can be radical and profound change only if schools apply for opted-out status.
      Schools will apply for opted-out status in two ways. First, some areas—they will tend to be relatively well-off—will wish to embark on the long-term strategy, of turning all their schools into selective schools and, I have no doubt, in the long term into private schools in the independent sector.
      Secondly, other schools that wish to opt out will be in areas where closures are threatened. Any councillor, or former councillor, who has experience of school closures is scarred for life. Everybody acknowledges that there is a surplus of school places and that schools should be closed. But when one gets down to it, it is never "our school." It is always somebody else's school that should be closed, whether it has only a few or a great many pupils.
      Whenever the possibility of closing a school is talked about in future, the appeals procedure will be there as a backstop. As part of their strategy, groups of parents will decide to apply to the Secretary of State for opted-out status. The Secretary of State will then choose which schools should have that status. Labour-controlled areas will be ignored by him. Under the 1980 legislation, the Secretary of State said that he did not want to be involved in school closures—that he wished to return the power to close schools to local authorities. Very difficult school closure issues will, however, be decided by the Secretary of State. He will say, "Tory areas will keep their schools. Labour areas will close their schools." It is as simple as that.
      After schools have been awarded opted-out status, the Government will seek, as was intimated in the Sunday Times article to which I referred earlier, to turn them into the equivalent of English grammar schools. They will be helped, because that is Government strategy. The Secretary of State's allocation of grants over a five-year period will shovel money towards opted-out schools. It will be clearly seen that they are getting preferential treatment.
      The revenue account formula is of no use whatsoever. Clear obligations are being laid on all local authorities; they will ensure that no action can be taken against opted-out schools. What obligations does the measure
      238
      impose on the Secretary of State to play fair? We come down to that horrible word "reasonable"—a word that cannot be defined.
      The Secretary of State will decide, on his own personal judgment, the recurrent grant to give any school. The intention of the Under-Secretary of State, who is still manipulating the Scottish education service, is to steer grant towards opted-out schools, thus producing a two-tier system. The same procedure will operate for capital allocation. The Secretary of State will say, "We must feed our own first." By "our own" he means the opted-out schools and not those looked after by the local education authority. Inevitably, if a Tory Government remain in power, a two-tier system will be set up.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Worthington: No, I will not give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman should go back to sleep.
      It is extremely serious, because, over the centuries, a clear culture has developed which is precious and which will be destroyed by the Bill. I notice it particularly because of my own background. I had the privilege of moving from the class-ridden English structure with an elitist, snobbish culture into a system in which 96 or 97 per cent. of the population goes to the state school. There are enormous benefits from that. An enormous sense of community and cohesion comes from that identity with the local comprehensive school. It provides choice and variety instead of grey uniformity. I know of not one comprehensive school that is exactly the same as another. The comprehensive system provides the opportunity to develop the characteristics of an area and to give choices that are appropriate to the community. For example, in the Western Isles a school might add in Gaelic and in an area with heavy industry it might add in appropriate skills. The comprehensive system provides the potential for that choice—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Barry Porter: On the grounds that I have been here and awake. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that the entire education system should be controlled by the state and that it should all be comprehensive? Is that what he is saying?
      Mr. Worthington: A valuable system has been developed in which there must be a role for central Government in education, but there is also a role for education authorities. The Bill proposes a formidable centralisation of control over the state system whereby the Secretary of State decides which schools close and which remain open. When a Labour Government come into power, we shall repeal this legislation and restore the special relationship between the Scottish school system and the community in which it operates. We shall stop the destruction of that relationship by the divisive powers embodied in the Bill.
      Mr. Salmond: I should like to pursue the Minister further on the circumstances in which a school might wish to change its characteristics. Perhaps he can supply more detail of the characteristics that could be changed.
      In another place, Lord Sanderson said on 18 October that he fully expected that most self-governing schools will have no wish to alter their basic characteristics. This

      239
      evening the Minister said something very similar. Incidentally, the debate in the House of Lords was as badly attended as our debate has been.
      If Ministers in the House of Lords and here tonight can see no circumstances in which schools will wish to change their basic characteristics, why on earth are we debating these amendments? The Minister has tried to palm us off by saying that things are always evolving and that in time there will be changes and it would be ridiculous if self-governing schools could not make the same changes as other schools in the system. What changes does he perceive self-governing schools will wish to make after the five-year period? Will it be a change to single-sex education, religious education or—and this is much more likely—selective education?
      6.45 pm
      I see in the amendments the possibility of schools changing their characteristics the Government's intention to move the Scottish system of education towards a selective system which has been such a failure south of the border. We have to acknowledge that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is a product of the Scottish education system. He is not much of an advert for it, but he is certainly a product of the comprehensive system and the Scottish university system. Many Opposition Members are appalled by the actions of the Under-Secretary of State and his approach to education because he is seeking to deny future generations of Scottish schoolchildren the advantages that he enjoyed. There is no doubt in my mind that the opening up of the possibility of changing the characteristics of Scottish schools through self-governing status is an attempt to open the door to the reintroduction of selective education in Scotland, which would be a major step backwards.
      Mrs. Fyfe: During our discussions in Committee, the Opposition had to point out to the Government for many a weary hour that children should not be subjected to changes in the nature or the ethos of their schools any more frequently than necessary.
      We had to point out that it would be unreasonable to do as the Government first intended and allow changes in the nature of one to take place virtually as quickly as any group of parents could succeed in winning a vote to do so. Therefore, we welcome the protection in the Lords amendment, especially bearing in mind some of the changes that could be envisaged. For example, a school could change from one teaching both sexes to a single-sex school and back again. It could change from a non-denominational school to one serving a particular denomination and back again. It could change from a school promoting particular abilities and skills such as music and dancing or maths to one teaching whatever subject took the fancy of those deciding these matters.
      We debated whether we approved of giving specialist education to children in skills such as dancing and music as we wanted all children's abilities to be fostered. Although we agreed that certain skills should be fostered, we certainly drew a distinction between that and the prospect of a school changing from a comprehensive to one which was aimed at the fast stream—the children who were seen as academic high fliers.
      240
      Comprehensive schools are commonplace in Scotland. They exist in many small Scottish towns not because of educational policy but because that was the nature of the beast—in a small area, all the children in the locality came together in such schools. On the whole, it has been a success. We should not exaggerate that success, because under any system some children do not receive the education that they should.
      Conservative Members have been dishonest about our education system. Many of the problems with the English comprehensive system are caused by the way that it is run. It is commonplace for teachers to teach subjects for which they do not have a degree, never mind teacher training. A teacher in a secondary school in Scotland is required not only to have the relevant degree but to have the relevant elements in that degree before being allowed to teach that particular subject. For that reason alone, it is hardly surprising that comprehensives in Scotland have been more successful. The egalitarian ethos appertaining to so much of Scottish society is seen in our education system. It is natural and normal to bring together all our children in one building to share their experiences, and they are all treated the same whether they wear a uniform or not.
      Conservative Members representing English constituencies served on the Committee considering the Bill. We express our anger once again at their continuous ill-informed and ignorant interventions, their endless disturbances, their schoolboyish raising of points of order and their nonsensical manoeuvres. As the debate draws to a close, thereby offering no further opportunity to debate Scottish education, only two Scottish Tory Back Benchers are present, and only one of the English Tory stormtroopers of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mrs. Fyfe: May I point out, in answer to the finger waving of Conservative Members—
      Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) to comment on the number of Conservative Members present, when only four Scottish Labour Members are present?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we want to get into the numbers game.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I made that point for a very good reason. This is a Conservative Members' Bill. They want to force it on Scotland, yet few are present to defend their actions.
      Mr. Allan Stewart rose—
      Mrs. Fyfe: I will not give way.
      The Minister brought on to the Committee a bunch of English Tory Members not because of their interest in Scottish education but merely as stormtroopers to make pests of themselves. Only one has the guts to remain here to defend their position, but he has not been paying attention for most of the evening. He has been wandering in and out and reading something, I cannot see what.
      Mr. McFall: Does my hon. Friend recall that those Tory Members who thought that Charles Gray was knighted are the same hon. Members who were asked what

      241
      the "qualy" was but did not know? We offered them an awayday ticket to Scotland to find out what it was, but they were so ignorant that they rejected it.
      Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend is right. We challenged them to take a test to see whether they could pass the qualy, but not one of them would accept that challenge.
      Conservative Members displayed their ignorance of Scottish education in many other ways, but it did not prevent them from wasting hours of our time with their nonsense. They are pushing this legislation through regardless of the wishes of the Scottish people, but they will pay in the end through the loss of seats in Scotland. Tory Members are sure to lose—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
      Mrs. Fyfe: I am not surprised that Conservative Members are attempting to prevent Labour Members from expressing their views. They are making much noise because they have nothing to say. They have nothing to contribute to the debate other than schoolboy manoeuvres. Their behaviour will soon be exposed when the House is televised. I wonder whether they will then continue to conduct themselves like stupid public schoolboys. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would welcome an improvement in their behaviour. I am an ex-teacher in further education, but I never had a class that conducted itself in the way that Conservative Members are now doing. I know that you are often appalled by the conduct of Conservative Members, particularly when a woman Member is speaking.
      It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 38, 45 and 46 agreed to.
      There being private business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock MR. SPEAKER suspended the sitting, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business).
      6.57 pm
      Sitting suspended.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
  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 First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  7 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: My main reasons for supporting the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill fall under two headings—jobs and the environment. I want to say a little about each. By convention, I must be extremely brief, but I should be happy to answer points if given leave of the House to do so—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask hon. Members who are standing beyond the Bar to withdraw? I am having difficulty hearing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand the hon. Member's point. I ask hon. Members who are not taking part in the proceedings to leave the Chamber quietly.
  Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for raising that point of order. As I was saying, I shall be happy, if given the leave of the House, to clarify points at the end of the debate or before Second Reading.
  Having worked with young people and unemployed people in Cardiff, I have direct experience of the depression and degradation that unemployment brings, and I want to see an end to it. I have also been involved in the economic regeneration of Cardiff and I know just how hard it has been to achieve. We have had successes, but there are still massive problems. Unemployment in south Glamorgan is still above the Welsh average. Much of that unemployment is concentrated in my constituency, in the

  243
  very area covered by the Cardiff bay development, and in areas such as Riverside in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
  As the Committee will hear in due course, I hope, the barrage is the key to the redevelopment that will bring the jobs that are so vital to the area. Those jobs will help my constituency, but the impact will be felt throughout the region. About 30 per cent. of jobs in Cardiff are filled by workers outside the city and it is estimated that up to 10,000 jobs will be filled by workers from the rest of the region. In cash terms, that is about £75 million in wages, without taking account of the effect of the multiplier or of jobs during the construction period. The figures will be open to testing in Committee, but they show that the Bill should be carried over because it is so important to so many people. In 1981, 20,000 people a day were coming from the valleys of south Wales to work in Cardiff, and road and rail flows have increased since then. People in the region are increasingly interdependent.
  There is also the matter of the environment in which we live. I became a member of the city council in the early 1970s because I felt that the city was failing to create real communities for people to live in. At that time, we wanted to stop extending the city ever outwards towards Newport, Barry and Caerphilly and to bring people into the city centre to live. Our efforts were frustrated, but the death of the steel works and other heavy industries and the decline of the docks have created an opportunity, as well as leaving dirt and dereliction behind them.
  A start to the regeneration was made when Labour councillors in South Glamorgan spearheaded the Atlantic wharf development with the new county hall. That ambitious development saved money for the ratepayers. This very night the Association of County Councils is presenting its major national award to south Glamorgan for that initiative in this, the centenary year of county council government. The regeneration of south Cardiff needs a more powerful catalyst which will catch the imagination and create opportunities and jobs. That catalyst is the barrage. It has already caught the imagination nationally and internationally.
  The real challenge is how we manage this change. It must repsect the existing communities. It must involve affordable homes for local people and their children and grandchildren. These are the things that we are tackling in my constituency. We must keep existing jobs, even if they need to be relocated to make way for development. That is why I am pleased by the encouraging answer given to my question by the Secretary of State for Wales yesterday when he said that assistance for relocation and expansion of local firms would be forthcoming.
  We must redevelop south Cardiff so as to enhance and respect the existing city, but to create the jobs that we need and improve the environment in the way that we need, the barrage is the essential catalyst.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: As one who represents a constituency not far from Cardiff and who had a close connection with the dockland area of Cardiff some years ago, I accept the need for redevelopment of that area, but I have yet to be convinced of the need for the barrage. My hon. Friend, perhaps not intentionally, is twinning the ideas of relieving unemployment and constructing the
  244
  barrage. Unemployment and dereliction in Cardiff could be easily improved by the development of the dockland area, without building a barrage across the rivers.
  Mr. Michael: I respect my hon. Friend's views. The House of Lords Select Committee unanimously said:
  "The Committee was convinced on the evidence that the economic case was sound and that the investment prospects were good."
  That was an expression of the dependence of jobs on the barrage. I accept that this link needs to be questioned closely, but I cannot go into the detail today. The carry-over motion should be accepted so that this issue can be investigated, as my hon. Friend would wish. I contend that the case for the barrage is strong and urgent. Consideration should be carried over so that opposition to the Bill can be scrutinised by a Committee.
  Opposition to the barrage is sincere, but misguided. One element rests on the view that impoundment of water will lead to a rise in ground water and affect some basements. Everyone agrees that this is an issue, and I repeat that I have an open mind on it. However, evidence to date suggests that it has been considerably overstated by the Bill's opponents. As such problems would affect my constituency to the greatest extent, I assure the House that I am vigorously seeking clarity and precision on the likely effects of ground water. It is clear—this point was recently endorsed by the Welsh region of the National Rivers Authority—that the barrage will help to prevent flooding in the city. I should say that—following the line pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about jobs—the reassurances about ground water were unanimously accepted by the House of Lords Select Committee.
  Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend mentioned the role that has been played by the NRA. As I understand it, now that the scientists in the authority's employ have been freed of the political control that was exercised over them—just as it was over Welsh Water—they have opposed the barrage because of its implications in terms of flooding and water quality. My hon. Friend is obviously in touch with the Bill's sponsors and, presumably, the NRA. Perhaps he can tell us whether the NRA opposes the Bill.
  Mr. Michael: I am happy to respond to that point. The answer is no. The NRA has marginally updated the position now that it is a separate body. The updated report would be subject to close scrutiny by the Committee. The NRA's position has been made clear. First, it would improve the situation to lessen dangers in the future. Secondly, it has made strong comments about the safeguards necessary to maintain water quality. The House of Lords Select Committee considered those safeguards adequate. My hon. Friend has raised a matter that needs careful consideration and scrutiny by the Committee.
  The importance of Cardiff bay as a site for waders has been overstated by some, but not all, of the opponents of the Bill. The area is not a site of international importance for waders or wild fowl in its own right, but it is not insignificant. That is why the decision to create alternative feeding grounds is important. I hope that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other groups will recognise the benefits of the barrage for the human environment, and that they will make a positive effort to

  245
  develop the alternative lagoon and get its management right. The matter deserves full scrutiny by a Committee of the House.
  There is real concern about the national and international environment. It is right that the Government should be under pressure to give greater priority to planning and conserving the environment. However, that is no reason to stop this Bill. We are talking not about a natural environment, but about one that was created by building the docks 150 years ago, tipping and reclamation of land, the despoliation caused by heavy industry and the pressures of a growing city.
  The barrage will keep out tidal waters which the House of Lords report described as "far from clean" and it will lead to the removal of many sewer outlets from the Cardiff bay area.
  Many people are understandably fearful of the changes which the barrage will bring but many more look forward with hope. One man who sailed out of Cardiff docks for many years said of the mud at low tide, "It stank then and it stinks now. Let's get on with it." He speaks for many people.
  South Cardiff has long been the backyard of our city, but in it live some of the best people and some of the closest communities I know. They deserve jobs, homes and a pleasant environment. The Bill can unlock that door to opportunity. We must manage that opportunity in the best way possible for our city, for our communities and for future generations. I ask right hon. and hon. Members, please do not slam that door in our faces.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to some of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I had hoped to be able to synchronise our chronometers and to speak for the same length of time, but as my hon. Friend spoke for less time than I had expected, I may be unable to do that. But I shall do my best.
  I take a different view from my hon. Friend and others who support the motion. I doubt its validity. First, we ought to establish clearly the purpose of a carry-over motion. Why are we debating it? Why is it not an automatic procedure? It is an opportunity for the House to decide whether it wishes to give leave to the promoters of a private Bill to allow it to span two parliamentary Sessions. It is a matter for right hon. and hon. Members to consider with all the wisdom that they can muster. They have to consider the state of the Bill. It is not an automatic procedure, where hon. Members turn up, give a nod and it passes through to the next Session. We must decide whether the Bill is in a fit state to be carried over, whether it deserves to be carried over and whether it should have the leave of the House to be considered, not only in the parliamentary year which comes to an end the day after tomorrow, but in the 12 months following the Queen's Speech next week.
  This Bill has plainly not earned the right to be carried over. I base my case on the preamble of the Bill and because it appears before us in a defective state. In effect, we are considering two Bills—the one which the House of Lords thought that they sent to the House of Commons, and the one which they sent. I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and the
  246
  promoters of the Bill, through their parliamentary agents, some 26 hours ago of my reasons. I have not received any formal communication, although I have had some informal communication about details of the Bill.
  There is no contest between anybody here tonight about whether there is a defect in the Bill. The question is whether that defect destroys the case for a carry-over motion.
  When the Bill left the other place it was accompanied, as is normal, by a plan, signed by Lord Elibank, the Chairman of the Lords Committee, which gave effect to the terms of the Bill. There is a line marked on the map. Everybody who lives or who owns a business within that line is protected against ground water damage, which the promoters of the Bill have accepted will be possible after closing off the mouths of the rivers Taff and Ely.
  The line offered by the promoters, in the case they presented to the Committee in the other place, was known as plan 12. The map carried two lines—describing the protected property line and the further protected property line. In Committee, their Lordships in their wisdom decided to abolish the inner line, and to make the outer line the sole determinant of the area within which compensation could be paid, or works could be carried out in lieu of compensation, to businesses and homes which had ground water ingress into basements or foundations. That was given the backing of the whole House on Third Reading in the other place.
  Plan 12 was prepared by the promoters based on geological estimates, and it covered a large area. There is disagreement about whether ground water effects will be more extensive in my constituency or in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I think that they will be more extensive in my constituency, but it is a minor point. Thousands of homes will be affected one way or the other. I have not studied the matter that closely, but when I glance at the map I see that more properties will be affected in my constituency and more acreage in my hon. Friend's, but that is a moot point.
  What is not a moot point is that in plan 12, as presented to the Lords, the outer boundary was to be the one within which every property had the right to a free survey at the expense of the promoters, and to compensatory work by them to put right any damage caused by water ingress as a result of the barrage. If there was any problem or disagreement about those works, people would be able to go to arbitration in the normal way. The Lords accepted that scheme.
  The Chairman of the Committee signed five copies of the plan. One was deposited in the Private Bill Office in this House, one in the Private Bill Office in the other place, one at the headquarters of both of the promoters—the Cardifff Bay development corporation and South Glamorgan county council—and one in the city hall. However, it turns out that the plan that the Chairman of the Committee, Lord Elibank, signed was not coterminous with plan 12—the plan which the promoters had offered.
  Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend and the House. I notified him of this earlier, so it will come as no surprise. This is a serious issue, but it has been dealt with and the formalities can be dealt with easily.
  My hon. Friend first mentioned the issue to me late last night, although it could have been raised with the county council at any time during the past two weeks. I mentioned it to the county council this morning. It has checked the

  247
  situation and confirms that my hon. Friend is right. Plan 12 is the correct plan. The council has checked with the authorities and there are two ways in which the situation can be put right. It apologises for the error, which it did not notice until it was drawn to its attention. Either the Chairman of the Lords Committee can sign a new plan, or an amended plan can be put to the Commons Committee. Either could solve the problem—whichever is more acceptable to the authorities of the House. It is right that my hon. Friend should raise the matter, but it has been dealt with, and can be dealt with without difficulty. Perhaps it would be as well for my hon. Friend to leave it at that and get on to the other important issues he wants to raise.
  Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend will have to let me make my own speech in my own way. However, I accept that he is perfectly correct in informing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he has told me this in a verbal form. In the almost 26½ hours since I communicated this to the parliamentary agents for the promoters, I have received no formal communication from the agents or the promoters to the effect of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Mr. Michael: I want to place on record the fact that I have spoken to those individuals as well. I assure my hon. Friend that what has been said by the county council has been confirmed by those who represent them. The county, of course, had not been approached by my hon. Friend until he raised the concerns of his constituents, which recognise are important, with me. I hope that he will accept my reassurance, which is on the record in this House.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the first debate on a private Bill that I have attended. I find myself a little confused about the status of the different maps and the lines on the maps. Can you advise us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the whole Bill is invalidated as a result of the confusion and we thus need to start from scratch, or whether there is a way of getting round the problem?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matters that I have heard referred to in the course of the debate are matters which, if the House approved the motion before it, could doubtless be considered and determined by the Committee that will consider the Bill in the fullness of time.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to refer to the terms of the motion and especially the fifth paragraph, which says:
  "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".
  The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who have now been omitted by the redrawing of the map will be denied the opportunity to petition against the Bill because the map was redrawn following the examination of the Bill by the House of Lords and before the expiry of the Session. Can you give us some guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether we are now able to proceed with the Bill, knowing that we are, in effect, disfranchising 500 of those constituents—or at least withdrawing their right to petition against the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman is precise terms whether petitioners who might be affected by these later developments would be within time to submit their petitions. However, I have no doubt that it would be possible for the Committee of the House to have regard to and to take into account what has been said in this debate in its deliberations on the Bill.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to pursue the matter, but it is a serious point. If I have understood your ruling correctly, you are saying that the Committee that will consider the detail of the Bill will not be bound by the terms of the motion. If that is the case, should we be discussing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a question that rightly arose from the paragraph, to which he referred, about the rights of petitioners, as distinct from the rights of Members of this House. I cannot say off-hand—and it would be unwise for me to make an off-the-cuff remark which might prejudice the rights of petitioners—whether there are those who might wish to present a petition and who might be excluded by the terms of that paragraph. However, there would be nothing to prevent the Committee from listening to and taking account of the submissions made by hon. Members in the debate and therefore having regard to the points raised.
  Mr. Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should point out that an undertaking has been given to restore the line to the point where everybody thought it was. There is no question of anybody being disfranchised. The question simply does not arise.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I do not know whether I can make a point of order in the middle of my speech—I think that I may be able to help you. The date of 24 July was the last on which petitioners could lodge objections in this House. Do I sit down now?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) suggested that all that had happened was that there had been a reversion to what was previously understood about the scope of the Bill in this respect. He suggested—and it would be improper for me to suggest that he was doing anything other than correctly guiding the House—that because the previous delineations were sufficiently known at the relevant time, those who had the right to petition did so and that what is now at issue does not expose the delineations to new petitioners who might be excluded by the time limits. I hope that that is clear.
  Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If only that were true. What could easily have happened to all or any of the 850 homes and few businesses in the areas affected is that if they had proceeded on the basis of the document on which they thought they were relying, they would have proceeded on the basis that they did not need to petition because they were within the line. They did not, therefore, petition. If they then find that they are outside the line and want to petition about that fact, they have lost the right to do so. Can they have that right restored by the alteration that my

  249
  hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has, in all sincerity, suggested may be made? That is why I am concerned about my constituents' rights.
  Mr. Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I tried to explain, surely the position as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) thought it was a fortnight ago—and he was not sure that there was a problem until this weekend—has been put right. The position is once again as he and everyone else understood it, so there is no problem.
  Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am genuinely confused now. As I understand the terms of the motion, we are considering a Bill that has been through the House of Lords and has now come here. The argument is that it is now in a fit and proper state to he extended to the next Session of Parliament. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has submitted that the Bill is not properly prepared to proceed in the next Session. To reinforce my hon. Friend's argument, the evidence for that is that the boundary of the area that will be affected by the Bill has now been altered. Can you help me on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Certain facts were put to the people of Cardiff, who then had the right to petition. At that time, there were many people who did not petition against the Bill because the boundary, as delineated on the map, did not affect them. After the Bill has gone through the House of Lords and come here, as a matter—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was speaking on a point of order, but he seems to be making a speech and, if I may say so, a rather lengthy one.
  Mr. Rogers: I should still like your clarification on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Bill is not in a fit and proper state to go through to the next Session, you must rule that the motion is out of order and under the terms of the motion, you do not have any option but to do that. If people have not had the right to petition, if the Bill has not been properly prepared and if it is proceeding on the basis of statistics and information that have been altered by a conservation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone sufficiently far for the House and myself to have grasped the point. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said that it is now clear that the people affected by the scope of the Bill are those who it was assumed would be affected at the relevant date. No one is apparently affected now who has not already had the right to petition. In any case, these are not matters that lead the Chair to rule on the validity of the motion, but matters that doubtless will be taken into account when hon. Members reach a decision on the motion before the House and in the subsequent proceedings on the Bill should the House decide to approve the motion.
  Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you explain to the House whether, in your other role as Chairman of Ways and Means, you would sanction a Bill coming to the House tonight if it was not in order, or would you rule it out of order, if it was?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member and the House know that, when a private Bill is submitted to the House, it goes before the Examiners, who scrutinise the vires and satisfy themselves that the Bill is in order. Only then is the Bill allowed to seek further progress in the House. It is not necessary for me to give any further clarification. I hope that the position is now clear and that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West will resume his speech.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received notice that the boundaries have been revised or any legal or other advice about the Bill, now that these amendments, post-Lords but pre-Commons, have been incorporated in the map?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: My response is in the negative. I am sure that if anything was out of order, I should have been notified by the appropriate authorities and those who serve me in the House.
  Mr. Morgan: I shall resume my speech, but I wish to raise one additional point of great importance which has been overlooked in the past five minutes of exchanges. Extreme care is always taken by those advising petitioners about the phrasing of petitions. If someone lives on one side of a line defined in the Bill, his petition must be phrased in a certain way and it is ruled invalid if a form of words is used which hints that he lives on the other side of the line. Someone within a protected property zone must frame his petition making it clear that he is a householder or the owner of a business within the zone. If the property or business is on the other side of the line, the petition must be phrased differently to be in order. That point must be borne in mind.
  Let us consider the general state of the Bill. The motion is not an automatic carry-over motion but a debatable one. I put it to the House that the Bill is not fit to be carried over because it is defective. We have to accept the word of the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, that a mistake in the Bill can be put right, but that does not alter the fact that the Bill is defective. He may maintain that it is not very defective, but 850 homes, a hospital and a substantial number of small and medium-sized businesses constitute a sufficiently significant defect to rule the Bill not fit to be carried over. How great an error must the Bill contain to stop it being carried over automatically? In my view, a substantial number of businesses, a hospital and 850 homes in my constituency render the Bill sufficiently defective.
  The question whether the Bill is defective is primarily a matter of procedure. I have nothing to show my constituents to prove that the Bill will be put right. I have received no form of communication, either from the promoters or their parliamentary agents.
  When deciding whether the Bill is sufficiently close to achieving its objectives to require us to carry it over from one parliamentary Session to another, we must consider whether the Bill commands general support in the community in Cardiff. The Bill is supported by both the local authorities and the appropriate Government Department. However, there is an archaeological freezing process in Government Departments and local authorities which does not apply to public opinion. When a Government Department and two local authorities become committed to a scheme, they find it extremely difficult to change their minds, whatever new information becomes available.

  251
  The Bill stems from studies carried out in 1985 by the present Secretary of State's predecessor when he represented Pembroke. The measure was eventually presented in the form of a statutory instrument to set up the urban development corporation in March 1987, when the then right hon. Member for Pembroke was still Secretary of State. In a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 31 March under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), the Secretary of State said:
  "At the end of 1985, I decided to commission a study of the investment potential in the area with particular reference to the benefits which would flow from the construction of a barrage across the estuaries of the Taff and Ely rivers close to the entrance of Cardiff harbour."
  That goes back four years. He continued:
  "The results confirmed our view"—
  I am not sure who "our" was: perhaps the Secretary of State and a property consultant—
  "that it should be possible not just to breathe new life into south Cardiff but to bring forward private sector investment on such a large scale that the project would become one of international significance."—[Official Report: Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.; 31 March 1987, c. 4.]
  The idea for the barrage was then presented to the two local authorities and it was proposed that some of the senior councillors become members of the urban development corporation. That is what occurred; a minority of five out of 14 councillors on the corporation are nominated by the local authorities. That is a far superior way of achieving regeneration of a run-down inner-city area than the model normally followed in England, where no local authority representatives are appointed to the body responsible, but it posed a major problem. It meant that, when dissent emerged in the community as more facts became known, it was more difficult for the supertanker of local authorities and the Government Department, aiming straight for the Titanic, to turn themselves around in time because dissent was seen not merely as the result of new information but as a breach of the code of lèse majesté or hara-kiri or omertà.
  Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that the monitoring committees and liaison committees established in both local authorities did not include in their membership the members nominated to the board and so gave the element of independence encouraged by both local authorities? Those committees could look critically and constructively at much of the detail as the matter proceeded.
  Mr. Morgan: No, I do not agree with that. My hon. Friend is right that monitoring committees were set up by both authorities but, as I said, because of lèse-majesté it is psychologically difficult for local authorities to say, "New information has come in which makes us more doubtful. We had better have a general debate about it." They cannot do that simply because their most senior councillors are on the urban development corporation, albeit in a permanent built-in minority.
  I do not criticise the local authorities. I would probably have done similarly had I been a councillor. Local authority opinion could not shift as easily as public opinion when new facts emerged to cast doubt on the validity of the original assumptions of 1985 and the
  252
  establishment of the UDC in 1987, following the meeting chaired by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West. Local authorities could not divert from the direction upon which they had embarked under the tutelage of the Secretary of State, whatever the private opinion of individual councillors. I make no comment on councillors' private opinions. They are a matter of speculation. We can judge only by the council's decision or lack of decision to change its mind when new facts become available. That is not true for the public and it certainly is not true for us tonight. We all have a free hand to look at the merits of the case for the carry-over motion because we are not Whipped. We can see whether the Bill comes close to achieving its objectives in relation to jobs and improvements in the environment which were fairly set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
  Would the proposal bring anywhere near the number of jobs talked about in the Bill's preamble or would it have the reverse effect? That seems highly relevant to the carry-over motion. A large number of jobs—about 15,000—already exist within the area covered by the urban development corporation's compulsory purchase order comprehensive redevelopment area.
  When I spoke to the officials who have the tricky task of putting into action the relocation programme, they told me that we would do well to keep half those jobs after they had been relocated to make way for redevelopment. That seems to pose a considerable problem for us when we consider whether the Bill is worthy of a carry-over motion. We have to contemplate the possibility that not only might the proposal not achieve the 30,000 jobs that have been spoken about in the long term, but it might take away 7,500 jobs from the total 15,000 jobs that currently exist. The number of jobs lost may be only 5,000, since not everything would be comprehensively redeveloped, although large areas would be. According to those most closely involved in the relocation of jobs, we would start with a major loss of jobs.
  Mr. Michael: Would not my hon. Friend accept that this was precisely the important point which I addressed in my question to the Secretary of State which he answered yesterday? His reassurances of his determination to ensure the retention of jobs play an important role in the way in which we shall pursue the development which will follow on from the barrage.
  Mr. Morgan: I accept the sincerity of my hon. Friend's remarks, but regard his point as a minor one compared to the problem which will be caused because many businesses in this area which now pay low rents will have to pay about four times the present level. They will move to highly desirable new industrial estates, but they will have to pay the rent, rates and insurance, all of which are connected with the rental levels.
  I fear that the jobs argument is so distant from the preamble to the Bill that it harms not just the case for the Bill, but the prospects of granting the carry-over motion.
  Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to pose a question on an issue about which we are all concerned: the number of people which it is suggested could be employed if the carry-over motion were agreed and the scheme were introduced. It is estimated that the scheme will bring more than 30,000 jobs into the area. I am only suggesting that as an estimate and I

  253
  appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend that jobs could be lost. Nevertheless, on balance, we could gain about 22,500 jobs in the long term even if we lost the 7,500 jobs which he suggests might go in the short term.
  Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who always expresses himself with such great sincerity on these matters. Anybody who says that he has found the technique of creating 30,000 jobs in south Wales has been carefully hiding himself in the bushes during the past 50 years. The regional policy has operated since the special areas legislation was introduced in the early 1930s.
  It is possible to build accommodation for 30,000 jobs. However, that is quite different from finding the occupiers of those builders rather than the property speculators who put up the buildings. What businesses will they be? Where will they come from? Will they be local to south Wales? I am deeply sceptical about any estimate involving job numbers of about 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000. It is terribly easy to talk about those figures, but awfully difficult to demonstrate the reality which lies behind such estimates.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Is my hon. Friend ignoring the experience of the major towns and cities of south Wales during the past 20 years in which there has been inertia and expressions have been made against change? Experience has shown that, when areas have been upgraded, there has been an increase in jobs. Is my hon. Friend arguing for a continuation of the industrial slums which were widespread in south Wales during the past 50 years, some of which, unfortunately, still continue? Does not my hon. Friend see that such upgrading is of enormous benefit?
  Mr. Morgan: I think my hon. Friend is arguing that Hermann Goering was the greatest contributor to comprehensive redevelopment that we have ever seen in this country. It is inappropriate to say that while standing in the Chamber of the House of Commons which he successfully bombed in May 1941.
  Most of the jobs that have been created in south Wales have been created on green field sites on the fringes of towns. The TSB in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is on a classic green field site development and promises a large number of new jobs. I could also mention city centre developments such as NPI in Cardiff, which does not demonstrate that this proposition—
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend must see the other side of the coin which is that the creation of those jobs is at the expense of the destruction of old industries in unsuitable areas in which industry lived cheek by jowl with housing. There has been large-scale redevelopment, where much of the old pattern of industry and the bad examples of the past have disappeared to enormous benefit. Is not that what will happen when the Cardiff Bay barrage is introduced?
  Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is talking about a new sort of religious concept whereby demolition and creation take place simultaneously. There are extreme risks in the notion expressed by my hon. Friend that sweeping things away is a creative procedure. The people who worked in the factories would not take that view.
  Mr. Michael: Will not my hon. Friend acknowledge that there has been tremendous success through the
  254
  redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff? The regeneration of Cardiff through programmes such as the Cardiff and Vale enterprise has encouraged local people to set up in business and makes us optimistic that we may continue to do better, rather than worse, than promised.
  Mr. Morgan: I am not sure what that proves. Redevelopment in the centre of Cardiff is one thing, but the comprehensive redevelopment and change of use down in the Cardiff docklands—covered by the compulsory purchase order area in the Bill—seems to he entirely different.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend should accept the arguments of his other hon. Friends that, undoubtedly, redevelopment will lead to new jobs. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and anyone who argues against the fact that this is one side of the coin would be wrong. Will my hon. Friend develop this point, as I am sure he would want to—
  Mr. Morgan: Given half a chance I will.
  Mr. Rogers: A large impounded lagoon is unlikely to create many jobs. The barrage is not required to create the jobs. What is required is a redevelopment of the docklands area of Cardiff which is already served by an extension of the motorway. I am sure that my hon. Friend is going to develop the point that it is not necessary to have a barrage to redevelop Cardiff. I support the redevelopment of Cardiff, but not a barrage.
  Mr. Morgan: I was moving on to that point about 10 minutes ago.
  The other unsatisfactory aspect of the new jobs issue is that in front of the House of Lords not a single investor other than those paid as consultants by the Cardiff Bay development corporation appeared as witnesses to give any support to the proposition that this redevelopment and barrage would create additional jobs or investment.
  I shall turn to the environment and the possibility—I put it no higher than that—that the Bill, far from achieving its objective of improving the environment and thereby creating a more aesthetically pleasing environment for potential investors, could have the reverse effect. This point has already been alluded to in one of the innumerable interventions in my speech.
  As far as I am aware, there is no dispute about the nature of the water that would be impounded by the barrage. It is generally accepted that the colour of the lake would alternate between green and brown, depending on the weather and the microbiological conditions. At no time of the year, and in no weather conditions, would it be blue or brilliant. The water would also be turgid.
  The problem with impounding the Rivers Taff and Ely, in terms of distancing the Bill from the preamble, is that the water might, to use the modern American usage, be a turn-off for investors, rather than a turn-on. The reason for that is that the rivers Taff and Ely, almost throughout their length of between 20 and 30 miles, have sewage outlets, many of which are not mapped by the relevant monitoring authorities. As a result, their microbiological quality is extremely poor, but this is the water that would be impounded.
  This will cause two problems. First, in the winter, the storm overflows from the joint sewers that handle rain water and sewage would lead to sewage overflowing the weir, whereas normally it would be below the weir. Storm

  255
  conditions are by no means confined to winter in south Wales. Such an overflow would force sewage over the weir and into the Rivers Taff, Ely, Cynon and Rhondda, and their various tributaries.
  Secondly, in the summer, treated sewage becomes a significant proportion of the water-flow. The National Rivers Authority has informed me that in a typical summer—let alone this summer, which was particularly dry—one third of the flow of the river Ely is treated sewage, as is one sixth of the flow of the river Taff. That is why at Radyr weir, in my constituency and near where I was born and brought up, the smell is similar to that I remember smelling 40 years ago as a small boy cycling along the edge of the weir. I am told by the N RA that that is a sign of how difficult summer conditions are for any impounded or semi-impounded body of water, such as Radyr weir.
  This problem is made worse with a large body of water, with sunlight playing on its shallow parts. It is more than likely that as a result, every five or six years, there will be a major algal bloom and a probable major fishkill, thereby rendering coarse fishery virtually impossible. If that happens, there cannot be a biological control of the midge explosion that would probably also occur.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to Venice. It smells pretty nasty, but it is still an extremely attractive place.
  Mr. Morgan: Comparisons with Venice are delightful, but I do not think that we can assume that the carry-over motion will do away with seven centuries of history in south Wales and northern Italy and give us an Adriatic environment.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I hesitate to intervene in this internecine warfare, but are we to understand that a democratically elected city council and a democratically elected county council, properly advised on all these matters concerning sewage—about which the hon. Gentleman is clearly an expert—have reached the conclusion that the Bill is a good thing? If so, why does the hon. Gentleman wish to overturn the decision of those democratically elected bodies properly advised? I am, in the true sense of the word, disinterested in the Bill, but I am not uninterested because there will be a Mersey barrage at some stage, and we shall have to go through the same sort of procedure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: One barrage at a time, please.
  Mr. Porter: The House should know, because I have a right to vote and my constituency borders on parts of Wales, why the hon. Gentleman is opposed to these decisions.
  Mr. Morgan: I understand why the hon. Gentleman was so hesitant about intervening. Had he been paying attention earlier, he would have heard me say that it was a sad day when the Opposition found themselves in such a difficult position. The Secretary of State has made a Mafia-type offer—an offer that one cannot refuse—to the two local authorities. It was that either they had an urban development corporation imposed on them with no local authority representation or there would be one with
  256
  built-in minority local authority representation. Quite rightly—I offer no criticism of this—the councils chose the second option.
  Just because one of those authorities is Labour-controlled and the other has a Labour majority in a hung council, we should not feel that we cannot speak on the issue or consider it. We are considering a germ of an idea produced by the Secretary of State and it is up to us to examine it thoroughly, regardless of the fact that a minority of the members of the UDC were Labour councillors and that—in my view, although there may be other views—the local authority has been severely inhibited in its ability to cope with the new information that has emerged about water quality. I was referring to that when I was interrupted for the 67th time. I find being interrupted restful. I am grateful for the sympathy of my hon. Friends. I could do with a glass of water, but I am all right.
  Mr. Rogers: I will get one.
  Mr. Morgan: Thanks.
  I must make a point about the groundwater and the potential damage, which is closely related to the procedural issue that I raised when I began. There are questions about whether the Bill has been adequately prepared, given our knowledge about groundwater. Regardless of where the water came from, we need to look at whether Bills should come before the House when they have not been properly researched and when an offer is made to residents—the constituents of many of us—that they will be covered against the damage created by this project. We do not know how extensive that damage could be, or even whether the council is on the right lines in calculating what the groundwater damage is likely to be. There is a wide divide between geologists on this. Some of them take the view that a Mickey Mouse study has been done, to use the words of one geologist, who lives in Cardiff. It is felt that they have not even started to get the geological studies right because of the Mickey Mouse computer model.
  In listening to the views of geologists, I have found that those who know the south Wales area well, who either live, work or were raised there, or educated there in geological faculties in universities, take the view that this has been inadequately researched. Those who are paid by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and have little experience of the local geological factors and in particular the odd combinations of rainfall and river flows and the nature of the aquifer under Cardiff, take the view that there is no problem.
  Those geologists who have not been paid by the company—there are some exceptions—are concerned about the way that research has been done into what lies underneath Cardiff. There should be work on the aquifer and how that interrelates with rainfall and flood water conditions. Those who have much less experience of south Wales are for the plan.
  I am extremely concerned about whether the Bill even begins to fulfil its preamble by way of being able to assure the people living in my constituency.
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right to bring up that point, and if he does not go on too long, I hope to do the same. As he knows, I am an engineering geologist by profession. Some of the information submitted in support of the Bill at various times to seek the support of hon.

  257
  Members—I refer to the glossy paper that I have with me—is riddled with inaccuracies. I advise my hon. Friend that those independent geologists who have examined the Wallace Evans report, as I have—people who have been involved and who know the situation as I do—see the report as having been prepared hurriedly and as being riddles with inaccuracies. Just over a year ago when the development corporation held a symposium in the Institution of Civil Engineers across the road and the same questions were asked, I later received the written affirmation that some of the surveys had not yet been completed.
  Mr. Morgan: I defer to my hon. Friend's vastly superior knowledge of the geology of south Wales and elsewhere. My hon. Friend was not one of the geologists I was quoting, but his intervention further reinforces my argument.
  In the last minute or so of my speech, I shall refer to the state that the Bill should be in if it were to deserve a carry-over. The thing that repels me most about granting the Bill a carry-over is simply the extremely corrupt and corrupting procedure by which it has arrived here from the other House. I refer to the fact that a Secretary of State can set up an urban development corporation and then, having retired from politics, become involved in a monitoring and regulatory body which has a vital set of decisions to make about water quality, which is critical to the success or otherwise of the Bill in achieving what is stated in its preamble, and that he can then get a directorship with a major company, which is easily the largest landholder in the area covered by the compulsory purchase order.
  That is a preposterous situation, especially for Conservative Members. After all, the ABP company was a nationalised company which, in general, Conservative Members were extremely proud to privatise. However, in Cardiff it was renationalised with the setting up of the urban development corporation, which included the whole area of Cardiff docks in its compulsory purchase order. We then found that, following the acquisition of new directors, the company was to be privatised again and to be exempted from the compulsory purchase order procedure and that a profit-sharing formula was to be set up between the urban development corporation, the nationalised industry, and the former nationalised industry, ABP. That will cause deep misgivings to anybody involved with the compulsory purchase order affecting Cardiff docks. How can it make sense for a nationalised industry to be privatised, then renationalised in respect of its Cardiff docklands, and then privatised again?
  All that I can say about the previous Secretary of State is that power is delightful, and absolute power is absolutely delightful. The carry-over motion gives us the chance to stop the process. I have already mentioned one defect in the Bill, which has plainly failed its MOT. Surely it is time that the House took it right off the road.
  8.3 pm
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I am very much encouraged by the debate and by the evidence that it is occasionally permissible to criticise or even oppose one's leader. Heaven knows, the private Bill procedure is cumbersome enough and I know that it can be objected to, but it is nowhere near as cumbersome as a public inquiry. However, that is rather like saying that Tantalus's job was an easy one compared with that of Sisyphus. The plain fact
  258
  is that the combination of our procedures for dealing with private Bills and with public inquiries is one reason why we have such difficulty carrying through any great enterprise in this country.
  Such difficulties remind me of the problems of trying to pass the Soviet driving test in the good old days before glasnost when I was at the embassy in Moscow. During the two years I was there in the 1950s, nobody succeeded in passing the Soviet driving test. There was always some point on which one could be made to fail.
  It has emerged that Opposition Members are somewhat divided in their attitude to the merits of the Bill and to the acceptability of the carry-over motion. By and large, the opposition comes, as it obviously would, from those hon. Members whose constituencies will not benefit. I say straight away that my constituency will not benefit from this scheme in any way. Cardiff is a long way from us in north Wales. It takes a long time to get there. Indeed, it takes a lot longer to get to Cardiff than it does to get to London or Birmingham, and it certainly takes a great deal longer than it does to get to Liverpool.
  My constituents are much more concerned about the horrible things that are being done in Liverpool bay, where sewage is being dumped all over the place and is being washed up on our beaches. My constituents believe that far too much fuss is made about south Wales, where people persist in playing football with a ball that is the wrong shape.
  Therefore, it is not on constituency grounds that I support the Bill. I support it because this is an imaginative scheme that will make Cardiff one of the most exciting and beautiful cities in the world. In the long run, what is good for Cardiff must be good for Wales and what is good for Wales will in the end be good for my constituency.
  It is a national failing that in Wales and in the United Kingdom as a whole, except at moments of supreme national peril, we are unable to rise to the level of events. I cite in evidence most of the reactions to the momentous events in eastern Europe. I cannot conceive of the kind of debate that we have had so far taking place in the French or German Parliaments. The debate is befugged with parish pump and other procedural objections. France and Germany are used to great national undertakings. One can see the evidence when one visits Paris. Although some people may regret some of the recent constructions of President Mitterrand and Mr. Chirac, undoubtedly the citizens of Paris now take great pride in them, however much they may have argued at the time.
  The reluctance of the British Government and people to think big has been well exemplified in the debates on the Channel tunnel. The consequence for us in Wales is that we will not get the maximum benefit from the tunnel because of our petty-minded approach to the construction of the road and railway systems that are necessary to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel are spread throughout the country. Witness in contrast the attitude of the French Government, who are building roads and railways to ensure that the prosperity of the tunnel is conveyed throughout northern and western France.
  I know that there are valid doubts about the barrage scheme and that people are worried about the effect on bird migration—I believe that those worries are overstated—and about the effect on the micro-climate. I have some doubts, too, about whether the quality of the architecture will match the boldness of the concept. However, by and large it seems a bold and imaginative scheme. It will create

  259
  jobs and make Cardiff one of the great cities of the world. I am glad to be here to support the Bill and the carry-over motion.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on the way in which he presented his case. I know that he has worked hard with the promoters and that he has a close relationship with individuals on the development corporation and in south Glamorgan. We all recognise that in presenting the Bill he is performing what he sees to be his proper duty. Needless to say, I disagree with almost all that he said.
  My hon. Friend said that there were two important elements to his case: first, jobs; and secondly, the environment. His case on jobs was that the barrage was necessary because it would create jobs not only during its construction, but in terms of the opportunities for development. That is his case and that of the development corporation and the county council. Indeed, I understand that it was the subject of much detailed examination in the House of Lords and that their Lordships came to the conclusion that the case had been proved.
  I am not convinced of that. I have examined the evidence that was presented to the House of Lords, and it remains an assertion that the construction of the barrage will per se provide an attractive opportunity for private capital to come in, to the tune of £1 billion, and provide all the job opportunities that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) suggested. That is bunkum. There is no evidence to support that assertion. I have questioned closely the people involved in the development corporation, including the chairman and the chief executive. I have asked for evidence. I have asked those concerned to name one company that is prepared to say, "With the barrage I will come. Without it I will not come." The development that has taken place, in Cardiff in the past 12 to 18 months is evidence that the barrage is not necessary.
  We want to see the redevelopment of Cardiff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, and the opportunities of the docklands properly developed. We appreciate that the motor for that must be public expenditure and, because we support that, we applaud and welcome the initiatives of the past 18 months.
  Those new developments precede the barrage. Although it is well known in south Wales that there are major objections, to the barrage, those investments have still taken place because people have said, "We are prepared to invest even though the barrage might not eventually be developed."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I have a different understanding of the word "environment", as will emerge during the debate. He is concerned with the environment in terms of opportunities for its enjoyment by individuals—new housing, schools and social facilities. In other words, he is thinking of the enjoyment that would be derived from looking out across the lake, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) described as varying in colour between green and brown. That is the environment as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth
  260
  understands it, and he believes that the construction of a barrage would enhance the environment. I disagree with him.
  Numerous letters that have circulated among hon. Members have said that we are considering essentially a Labour case, and it is a pity that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), who made that point, is no longer in his place. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has written to hon. Members, as has Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, saying that this is a Labour initiative. The letters are freely available, so I will not quote them.
  I wish to make it clear, especially to some of my hon. Friends who may be undecided about which way to vote on this issue, that this is not a Labour party scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West pointed out that the scheme was the brainchild of Nicholas Edwards. He conceived it, set up the development corporation and developed a sweetheart relationship with south Glamorgan. I appreciate why that occurred. He has got south Glamorgan to present the case and, politics being what it is, those concerned have worked hard and have got support from the TUC and some of the party organisations in Cardiff.
  But for every unit of the party supporting the scheme, at least one other opposes it. So if there is a Labour involvement in the scheme, the opposition to it is being led by the Labour party. Three of the four constituency parties in Cardiff oppose it. My county council of mid-Glamorgan was not even consulted about the scheme, despite the major regional impact that it would have. It was horrified by some of the implications.
  My district council area of Rhymney valley, which is Labour controlled—we do not even see a Conservative candidate at election time—is opposed to it. With one exception, all Members who represent the valleys are opposed to it. In other words, if there is a Labour involvement, the Labour party and the environmentalist lobby are leading the opposition to the scheme.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good case for the virility of the Labour party in being able to debate issues strongly in local communities in south Wales, and he is right to emphasise that. The Labour county council took the initial risk of the investment to build the new county headquarters and Atlantic wharf. They took that risk at an early stage and everything else has followed from that investment. That is why the scheme has been described as a Labour initiative.
  Mr. Davies: If it was that much of a risk, I am sure that those concerned would have been surcharged by now by the district auditor. We appreciate what my hon. Friend says and we applaud what south Glamorgan has done. But it is not south Glamorgan's scheme. It is Nick Edwards' brainchild and those hon. Members who were here before 1987 know what Nick Edwards was about. He was concerned with the exploitation of the environment in his involvement in multinational mining companies. As far back as 1972 he was christened "Globtik Nick" because of his involvement in attempts to improve the marine environment in west Wales, when his companies were polluting our natural environment. He has now opted out, and is chairman of the National Rivers Authority.
  I believe that the barrage will fail, and perhaps we should make it clear that our objective is to kill it. Let no

  261
  one be in any doubt about that. I believe that it will be discredited as the measure proceeds through Parliament, and I shall ensure that every possible method of objection is used during its passage through the House. I believe that either the funding will be withdrawn and it will be seen to be unrealistic, or that in two or three years' time a Labour Government will withdraw funding from the scheme. Whatever happens tonight and whatever happens to the Bill, the barrage will never be built.
  If the barrage is built, it will go down in history as a monumental folly. In the 1960s the experts told us that we could solve our housing problems by building high-rise intensive developments on green field sites in the valleys of south Wales. Not one Member who represents the valleys could fail to give examples of such estates to show how we now recognise the mistakes that were made in the 1960s. The experts told us then that that was the way to regenerate. Indeed, for the past 30 years the so-called experts have been telling us about the importance of nuclear power. We now recognise what a monumental folly nuclear power has been. The barrage is the latest instalment in that series of mistakes.
  I urge hon. Members to ask themselves, as they vote on this issue, how they will justify to future generations—we are all family people—giving support to a scheme which took an area classified as having the highest environmental value and destroying it to create at best a lake of dubious value for no economic justification, simply to provide glitzy housing, which is how the scheme is described by the South Glamorgan promoters. The chief executive of South Glamorgan has gone on record as saying that the scheme is about glitzy housing.
  Presumably the philosophy is that we could have the barrage and the lake, and then the developers could arrive to build Barratt and Wimpey homes, thereby providing glitzy housing so that the yuppies can flood into Cardiff, live in those nice little houses looking over the lake and thereby bring economic regeneration to the heartland of Cardiff.
  How shall we justify that to generations yet unborn, when the price that we are having to pay for it is the destruction of a vital part of our environment? Such beliefs have no values other than those of materialism. They have no objectives other than consumption. They consider no obligation to the wider community and they recognise no responsibility to future generations. That is why we oppose the motion.
  There has been no evaluation of the environmental costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and I have intensive quarrying interests in our constituencies. When we are told about the environmental impact of the scheme, we are entitled to ask where the materials for it will come from. Clearly, they will come from our constituencies. The developers will rip the heart out of Garth woods, another site of special scientific interest, to get the building materials they need. They will rip the heart out of the limestone and sandstone quarrying areas of the valleys to construct the barrage.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Could that be the reason why Mid-Glamorgan has refused permission for the quarrying company in question to extend its quarry, whereas South Glamorgan council has deferred making a decision on the quarry, possibly until the end of this and similar debates?
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
  Professor Pearce had a message for us when he presented his report to the Government in the summer. I would be happy for the barrage scheme to be evaluated along the lines of the principles which Professor Pearce suggested. There would then be an evaluation of the true environmental costs. It would put a value on the energy consumption of such a scheme, on the raw materials used and on the alternative projects that could be developed. If the barrage was being provided for reasons of overwhelming national importance or even overwhelming regional importance, or if there were proven reasons for the regeneration of Cardiff, we would have to consider our position. However, the arguments for the barrage are specious. It is simply to provide an opportunity for glitzy housing and we are entitled to say, "Look at the environmental costs."
  Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
  Mr. Davies: Many hon. Members want to participate in the debate and I hope to reach a rapid conclusion.
  Mr. Cryer: I assure my hon. Friend that the Bill has not gone unnoticed in Bradford. A constituent of mine who is a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has urged me to examine the Bill. She is also concerned about the environmental impact of the Bill upon birdlife in her area. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that because she has expressed great anxiety in cogent terms. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Davies: I can hear muttering among the natives; my hon. Friends obviously think that there is a fair chance I will come to the question of birdlife.
  I should like to put on record the view of the RSPB:
  "The RSPB, and other wildlife conservation bodies including the Glamorgan Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, are opposed to the barrage proposal since it will permanently flood the intertidal lands that provide important feeding grounds for 5,000–8,000 wild birds which regularly use Cardiff Bay in Winter.
  Cardiff Bay is of high wildlife importance and has been notified, by the Nature Conservancy Council, as a Site of Special Scientific Interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  In biological terms, the bay is an integral part of the wider Severn estuary which is of international importance for shelduck, redshank, knot and dunlin and meets the criteria for protection under the European Community Directive on the Convervation of Wild Birds and the Ramsar Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands."
  Therefore, we are talking about a site of special scientific interest. This is the first occasion since the Wildlife and Countryside Act was passed that we have had a Government-sponsored scheme that will destroy, in its entirety, a site of special scientific interest—[Interruption.] I can hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) muttering away. As I said, this is the first time that a Government-sponsored scheme has proposed the destruction of a site of special scientific interest in its entirety. I am concerned because there may be other such proposals in the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth might say that, although it is a site of special scientific interest, there are overriding conditions and therefore we must sacrifice it. If we do not object to this proposal, hon. Members will not be able to object to the next one or the one after that. The principle must be established that a site of special scientific interest is just

  263
  that. We do not assess it—that decision is made by the Government's specialist advisers—so who are we to say that we should sacrifice this site? If we do so, we will have to be prepared to sacrifice all the others.
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Davies: Let me get on a little further.
  We have international responsibilities towards wildlife. We all hold up our hands in horror at the destruction of the rain forests in South America. We all make the case for the preservation of the African elephant and we argue for the wilderness of Antarctica. However, if we expect others in this world of ours to recognise their responsibilities, we have to recognise ours.
  Our islands have a unique environment. We have broad ice-free estuaries which offer a unique opportunity to the migrating wildfowl throughout the north Atlantic. That is our contribution to international conservation. If we want to argue that others should fulfil their responsibilities, we must put our hands on our hearts and recognise our international responsibilities. We are bound by our commitment to Europe and an international convention to protect this area, yet we are proposing to destroy it to build glitzy housing.
  Mr. Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, but this must be the last time.
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend does not recognise the likelihood that if one habitat is interfered with, the birds will find alternative habitats. That happens along the estuary where a large habitat—Collister Pill in Magor—was destroyed by drainage patterns. The birds in the Severn estuary found alternative habitats. Does my hon. Friend agree that the relative population of the birds in the estuary—I understand that it is less than the bird population in Chichester harbour—is light? There are big mud flats and wetlands on both sides of the estuary and the birds, which are more robust in finding alternative habitats than has been suggested, would find them. My hon. Friend is taking a pessimistic view of the likely result.
  Mr. Davies: I do not wish to be unkind to my hon. Friend, but I am appalled at his lack of understanding of the issues. The RSPB has studied the matter carefully.
  Mr. Flynn rose—
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend has had his say. The RSPB has made it clear that there is no spare capacity and birds cannot move on to the next convenient harbour.
  If the Bill is passed and the barrage is constructed, we will be removing a habitat and would kill the migratory wildfowl that depend on the harbour just as surely as if we were shooting or poisoning them. The irony is that if we were shooting or poisoning them, there would be uproar.
  Mr. Flynn rose—
  Mr. Davies: I must continue. My hon. Friend has had his say and his view was not accepted by the RSPB.
  Mr. Flynn: The society did not respond to my letter.
  Mr. Davies: If my hon. Friend has not received replies from the RSPB, he must take it up with the society.
  264
  I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the view of the Nature Conservancy Council. It is independent and objective. It petitioned against the Bill when it was presented to the House in 1987, and it is now further resolved in its objections to it—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should go away and find out the facts. The Nature Conservancy Council is opposed to the Bill because it thinks that we are abdicating our international responsibilities.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth introduced the motion, he suggested that both South Glamorgan and the development corporation would look for an alternative site. I understand that they have done that, but I have to destroy that hope in case hon. Members might think it a possibility. They are proposing to scoop out the lagoon up the estuary from the bay. It is only 10 per cent. of the size of the tidal mudflats that will be destroyed. Given the habitat around the margins, in terms of providing alternative feeding grounds it will be virtually useless.
  There are two other considerations. No one yet knows how to construct alternative feeding grounds. They will be unable to construct the unique environment that currently exists in the bay. It is washed at high tide and drained by two rivers bringing in high levels of nutrients to fertilise the mud and provide the invertebrates on which the birds will live. They do not know how to do that. They say that we should maintain it. In practice, that means that every year or two someone will come along—presumably in a JCB—to scoop out the mud, dump it in the Severn estuary and say to the birds, "There's your environment back." It is nonsense to suggest that. If South Glamorgan or the development corporation are serious about providing alternative habitats, they must come up with something better than what has been proposed so far.
  I conclude by expressing the hope that the argument—
  Mr. Barry Porter: Shortly.
  Mr. Davies: I could continue for a long time. The hon. Gentleman intervened earlier and I replied to his point. He did the House a discourtesy, however, by leaving his place. I can do without his churlish interjections from his seat below the Gangway on the Government Benches.
  I do not want to turn the debate into a valleys versus Cardiff confrontation. I know that all my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the valleys oppose the Bill, and I hope that they will have the opportunity to speak against it.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. I do not wish to be discourteous to her, but she represents a constituency a long way from the areas that will be affected by the Bill. I know that she has a long family tradition in my constituency, but she knows that in this place we represent the constituents who elect us. We speak for the people who elect us, not the people whom our fathers or forefathers represented.
  Mrs. Golding: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: Very well.
  Mrs. Golding: I am from the Welsh valleys. I was brought up in the valleys and I lived in the area for a long

  265
  time. I worked in Cardiff and I worked at Cardiff bay at the Hamadryad hospital. I saw the environment in which people worked. I do not forget. My memory is long. I am proud of Cardiff and I hope that the Bill will be carried. I want Cardiff to be a city of which we can all be ecstatically proud.
  Mr. Davies: I was right in my initial judgment not to give way to my hon. Friend. She presented us with an interesting anecdote, but nothing more. As I said, we represent the constituents who elect us. I accept that my hon. Friend has a history of contact with the south Wales valleys, but she represents an English constituency and she must speak for that constituency.
  Mrs. Godling: Will my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Davies: Be quiet, Llin, and give the rest of us a chance.
  I do not want to turn the discussion into a valleys versus Cardiff argument. I recognise that Cardiff is the capital of Wales, and we respect Cardiff as the regional capital. It is the regional economic and financial capital for us in the valleys. We want it to prosper and we shall support any measures that will allow the regeneration of derelict uplands and bring renewed prosperity to the valleys. It is folly, however, to believe that that can be done at the expense of our natural heritage. To believe that is to make a monumental mistake, but that is what the Bill proposes. Those issues have not been addressed in the Bill's passage through Parliament. That is why I believe that we should call a halt to this nonsense.
  8.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The House will appreciate how much I, as a Cardiff Member, should like to participate in the debate. In the circumstances, I think that it would be more helpful if I were briefly to state the Government's position.
  The Government have a substantial interest in the Bill's objectives, as it is the intention that the cost of building the barrage will be met by the development corporation, with the assistance of grant in aid provided by the Welsh Office. The proposal clearly raises many important economic, technical and environmental issues, and these have given rise to understandable concerns that will need to be considered properly and carefully. The best way of doing that is surely to allow the Bill to proceed to the new Session.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: The
  Minister cannot just resume his place—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. As I understand it, the Minister has resumed his place.
  Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister intervened as a Minister of the Crown and not as a Cardiff Member. He stated that the Government and his Department have a substantial interest in the Bill, inasmuch as the Department will produce the grant for the development corporation. The Minister has not told us anything about the cost implications for central Government expenditure. Surely he has a duty to the House to make an estimate of the cost implications. It is a matter of considerable concern.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I might call the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to make a speech.
  Mr. Rowlands: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, I shall call him.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I would be sad if hon. Members should interfere, in a sense, in what is essentially a discussion between colleagues in south Wales and introduce bad temper. We are anxious to resolve an honest difference of opinion that affects our constituencies in different ways. We do not need lessons from anyone on how we relate to Cardiff. Those of us who live in valley constituencies have recently had to undergo dramatic experiences as a result of the contraction of the coal industry. We are most anxious, therefore, that all schemes in south Wales that will provide jobs are undertaken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) was right when he said that many people travel from the valley communities into Cardiff. Indeed, the wealth of Cardiff was built on valley constituencies. That was done at the time when the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) was the branch secretary of the Penallta colliery. As a miner and union official, he contributed substantially to the well-being of my village, which is where my hon. Friend was brought up. That is one example of why we do not want a bad-tempered discussion.
  It must be accepted that there are valid objections to the Bill. I am in favour of the development of south Cardiff and the docklands. There are no ifs and buts about that. However, it is utterly beyond me to understand why a barrage has to be built. If a minor barrage were built near the Hamadryad hospital, for example, extra land would be available to add substantially to what is in the docklands, but the building of the proposed barrage would not add one acre on which factories or offices could be built. It would provide mooring spaces for boats in a marina. A knock-on effect on the valleys was mooted at one stage, but I cannot visualise many people from the Rhondda rushing to park their boats in a marina in Cardiff.
  After all, we are Barry boys. When I was a young kid, the best trips I had were one from the chapel and one from the club down to Barry. I suppose that from now on the people from Rhondda will be going to Cardiff to sail their boats from the Marina. If an argument can be advanced that there is a shortage of mooring places in south Wales, I shall support the Bill on that basis. That argument is not advanced, but many others are.
  I began to be interested in the Bill when I was invited to attend a symposium of the Institution of Civil Engineers. As an engineering geologist, I received the accompanying technical document with personal interest. I went to the symposium and met a finely collected bunch of people. The previous Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Crickhowell, was there as a sort of appointee. He held forth and entertained us extremely well. I am not complaining about that. Towards the end of the meeting I got up and asked what I thought were reasonable technical questions. Thereafter I was assailed for daring to speak out against the project. I was accused of being valley-minded. Some people who have left the valleys think that that

  267
  means small-minded, but we who live in the valleys with our great traditions of culture take pride in being called valley minded.
  I thought that something wrong was going on, so I asked the Cardiff Bay development corporation some questions. Before ever there was any talk about birds or the RSPB, I wrote to the corporation in all good faith asking about the surveys. Back came the answers: they were not finished. I asked about groundwater and hydrological surveys; they were not finished either. The geological surveys had not been finished. In other words, the whole civil engineering part of the Bill was predicated on surveys that had not been carried out or had been inadequately carried out.
  I would not object to carrying over the Bill if my fears had been satisfied, but they have not been. To be sure, a comprehensive report was done by paid consultant geologists or civil engineers. These independent experts have driven a horse and cart through some of the arguments, which do not stand up to examination.
  I began to become a little suspicious about what was driving the motor, so I thought I would take a look at the engine. Then I received an invitation as, I am sure, did other hon. Members. I remember when Associated British Ports brought in a Bill and laid on a champagne supper for Conservative Members who bothered to turn up to support the company. The promoters of this Bill have gone further. Any hon. Member who would like to visit Cardiff can be looked after and can stay the weekend there at the expense of the promoters.
  Mr. Terry Patchett: Why?
  Mr. Rogers: The company has written to every Member for Parliament offering to pay their expenses while in Cardiff. This puts the validity of the Bill in question. I am sure that none of my hon. Friends would be a party to such corruption, although I do not know about Conservative Members, who take a slightly different attitude to these matters.
  I am not against the development of Cardiff docklands—
  Mr. Barry Porter: If this is all as daft as the hon. Gentleman says, does it not follow that most of the members of Cardiff city council are daft and incompetent, that South Glamorgan county council is daft and incompetent and that at least half of his hon. Friends who represent south Wales are daft? I find that terribly difficult to believe.
  Mr. Rogers: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has links with Associated British Ports, but I am worried about his interests in this matter—it is rather unusual for him to be here at this time of night.
  I have reservations about some of the people involved with the Bill. For instance, Lord Crickhowell was the initial promoter of the scheme, and his peculiar position in all this has already been described by my hon. Friends. He browbeat the county council and the city council by telling them that they were going to have this urban development corporation—with or without local government representation. It is only fair to point out that it took what was on offer. Then the noble Lord became the chairman of the the National Rivers Authority. One of the problems about
  268
  the barrage is that it could lead to pollution in a quantity that no one has yet properly surveyed. The Taff and Ely rivers drain in behind the barrage, the Taff combining with the Rhondda and other tributaries. These are two of the fastest rising rivers in the United Kingdom.
  I am not a civil engineer or hydrologist, but I have been involved in such schemes and I know enough to realise that there are doubts about whether this scheme, as proposed, will allow the pollution to be taken away. Lord Crickhowell is a director of Associated British Ports, which is strange, when we consider that the main beneficiaries of the scheme and the main land owners in Cardiff bay are not the local authority—Labourcontrolled or otherwise—or the people of Cardiff but Associated British Ports, which owns at least 160 acres. So the previous Secretary of State, Lord Crickhowell, originally promoted the scheme, then became chairman of the National Rivers Authority and is also a director of Associated British Ports. If he carries on in these circles he might well disappear—if he does, I suggest that the seagulls mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) may help him to do it.
  The people of Cardiff want jobs, and it is certain that my constituents will also work in the project, but there is plenty of land where the dockyards are now. The vice-chairman of the development corporation, Lord Brooks, and I go back many years, to the time when the docklands consisted of a vibrant community of mixed races and cultures. He has been closely associated with the area and wants to develop it in the same way as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). We do not disagree. I do not think that jobs going to Cardiff will be taken from the valleys.
  Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend agree that the House of Lords Select Committee accepted the economic argument for the necessity of the barrage; that the NRA accepts that its job is to ensure that the water quality is adequate and meets the requirements of the Bill; and that for that reason the Bill should be carried over so that these matters can be tested properly in Committee?
  Mr. Rogers: Because the Bill is in such a bad state, it should be taken away and brought back. It is riddled with holes and inaccuracies. The Select Committee was very worried about the pollution from foul, untreated sewage and industrial effluents deposited in the bay by the rivers Taff and Ely. Swimming will be banned. Not so long ago someone fell off a raft in the middle of the Taff and died of Weil's disease, which is associated with rats' urine. That sounds like a case for the NRA. If the National Rivers Authority is so worried about pollution after the barrage is built it is about time it became worried now because there are already great problems of pollution.
  I have grave doubts about the need for the scheme. The only argument in favour of the barrage is that it will provide a waterscape to attract business and housing—in other words, we cannot have a factory in south Wales unless we provide a marina; we cannot have houses unless we provide a marina. The Government continually say that they are doing wonders for the south Wales economy and have attracted new industries to it. But the Cardiff barrage has not yet been built, so why is it needed?
  How much capital funding will be put into the Welsh Office? Will the Minister give us an assurance that that capital funding will come from the Government and not be

  269
  taken out of the allocation for Wales? If the barrage, which will provide a marina for yuppie boats, means that we cannot have vital infrastructure developments in the valleys where in some parts unemployment stands at 80 per cent., I will vote against the Bill all the way. However, if the Government intend only to finance infrastructure development in the dockland area, I will support it.
  The Bill's promoters sent Members of Parliament a leaflet entitled "Groundwater. The Facts". That is a ridiculous parody of the facts. For example, it says:
  "Groundwater does not rise above ground level so cannot flood streets and open spaces."
  That simply is not true. Groundwater does rise above surface level. That is how springs come out of the side of mountains. Groundwater does come to the surface. The intersection of the water table and the surface means that water will issue. If the groundwater is raised sufficiently, it will cause flooding. The leaflet is nonsense. That is why the report commissioned by the development corporation is itself technological nonsense.
  The leaflet goes on to ask:
  "Will the barrage increase the risk of flooding?"
  We should not forget that we are talking about thousands of ordinary people. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) may argue about whose homes will be flooded, but I will vote against any measure that will flood just one home. In my constituency, because of the precipitate nature of water run-off, people are affected by flooding, and when filthy water and sludge goes into a house and destroys a home it is a traumatic experience for the people who live there. If thousands are affected, there will be a thousand traumatic experiences. We should bear that in mind. It is not a matter of saying that only a few people or a few birds will be affected.
  Although there will be no floods, a flood warning scheme will be set up. The leaflet says that the
  "Flood Warning Scheme will allow swollen rivers to be let out to the sea without adversely affecting water levels in the rivers."
  There has been a reasonable estimate that the level of waters feeding into the barrage area will rise by at least 2 ft. The north end of Cardiff, west Cardiff and Cardiff Arms park have had substantial flood prevention schemes over the years because of the problems of flooding, but there will now be flooding from below, not necessarily from surcharge over the river banks.
  Mr. Michael indicated dissent.
  Mr Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth shakes his head. He does not even believe what the promoters say. He does not even seem to know his own documents.
  The leaflet says that if a person's basement becomes damp, it can be filled in and a new damp-proof floor will be provided.
  Mr. Michael rose—
  Mr. Rogers: No, I shall not give way. [Interruption.] It is all right for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to mutter away. I am reading the promoters' hand-out. I shall pass it to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth later.
  Mr. Michael: Misrepresentation.
  Mr. Rogers: It is not. The leaflet says:
  270
  "What is the present groundwater level? It varies throughout Cardiff but is much lower underground than in many parts of Britain."
  That is a lie. Groundwater is much lower underground in many parts of Britain. Water tables in any area go up and down with the rainwater. In the summer they decline and in the winter they go up. Wherever there are rivers and streams there is groundwater. There is no such thing as an average level. It is misleading to suggest that the groundwater level in Cardiff is much lower underground than in many parts of Britain.
  The document is open to question, but those are the facts on which the Bill went through the other place. A report from Wallace Evans for the consultants has been quoted. It is entitled, "Groundwater investigations. Final report. First issue, April 1989." That is riddled with inaccuracies. I am not saying that the problems cannot be overcome, but there is no need for them.
  Cardiff can have its development. The development corporation can have its development. Jobs can be brought to the area and houses can be built. But there is no need to block up two river mouths. It will provide only a waterscape and parking space for boats.
  Penarth is one of the most beautiful spots in south Wales. Many of my constituents go there at weekends. They visit Barry and the Vale of Glamorgan. Why spoil it for the sake of providing a parking space for boats?
  8.58 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: I fully understand right hon. and hon. Members' desire to do something for the docklands of Cardiff. It is one of the most devastated areas in Wales. Moreover, it suffered badly from architectral and sociological scarring in the 1960s, when some other bright promoters had an idea about modifying the docks in a particular way. They thought that they had the answer to all the troubles of the area by putting the population there into high-rise blocks, and we are still paying the price for that innovation. That was a terrible crime against the area and I hope that the House will bear it in mind when it comes to make a decision.
  I must declare a direct interest in the matter. The proposed barrage is designed to trap the River Taff that flows past my front window—after which we are all named. I know the River Taff well. As a child I swam in its loveliest tributary, the Cynon. In its upper reaches, it was a beautiful Welsh stream, barely tainted by the collieries and works above it. However, three decades later, I doubt whether many parents who live along the banks of the Taff, the Cynon, the Rhondda, or any of the other tributaries, would relish their children even playing along the banks of the river, let alone swimming in it.
  The river is now filthy. Its unkempt banks are festooned with all manner of discarded materials, from sanitary ware to leaflets promoting the virtues of the poll tax. They have been carried downstream to their temporary resting places by waters that are regularly subject to large infusions of raw and partly treated sewage from the treatment plants of the Welsh water authority—which, as has already been pointed out, was appointed by Lord Crickhowell in his previous capacity as Secretary of State for Wales. He now presides over the National Rivers Authority, which is supposed to ensure that companies such as Welsh Water clean up their operations and desist from fouling our streams and rivers.
  I must admit that I have little confidence in the prospect of such clean-ups while the companies and authorities

  271
  involved display more evidence of incest in their origins than did the Borgias. The so-called derogations granted to the water authorities by the Government mean that they can put off their clean-ups for considerable periods of time. Meanwhile, stinking flows the Taff, miserable are the views that it provides, and scientifically fascinating is the quality of its water and the debris that it bears down to the proposed site for the barrage.
  Let us take, for example, the phenomenon of discarded doors—not normally a species associated with the flora and fauna of our rivers and streams. The Taff is rich in these aquatic phenomena. Every time that the river rises—and in Wales it does so frequently—they float down from the fine communities of Merthyr, Aberdare and Rhondda, skipping across the flood waves of cream foam from the sewage works. The doors are evidence of the Welsh people's excellent preoccupation with the philosophy of recycling: they are often used as fences on allotments, which almost always back on to rivers. They are the only flat pieces of ground in the valleys. When the rivers rise, down come the doors; and where do they end up? If the barrage is built, they will end up upstream of it.
  I am not suggesting that the Bill's promoters have made financial arrangements with allotment holders in an attempt to use the Taff in the way in which Canadian lumberjacks use their rivers, floating timber downstream in preparation for the construction of the barrage. Discarded doors would almost certainly not be the first choice of material for a dam designed to attract well-heeled tourists and the developers of luxury apartments to the vicinity, which is the Bill's intention.
  What, then, will happen to those doors? Will they congregate on the surface of the new lake, and form a benign and ecologically desirable shield that will prevent the growth of stinking algae in the waters beneath—waters befouled by the sewage and rubbish that I have described? Or will the much-vaunted Cardiff Bay anti-pollution barge suck up them up along with the rest of the muck, offload them on to a mobile cesspit and cart the whole lot out to the Bristol channel, to dump them where all the rest of Welsh Water's sewage is dumped?
  Some months ago, I spoke to a yachtsman at Pierhead in Cardiff about the currents that run along and through the estuaries of the Taff and Ely rivers—rivers that would be blocked by the barrage. The main problem, he told me, was not the currents, but the fear of having his hull smashed by a kitchen table.
  With the Secretary of State's valleys initiative reputedly in full swing—although I have not seen much evidence of it along the banks of the Taff and the Ely in my constituency—the Welsh will be hard at work ripping out more doors and kitchen tables for replacement than ever before. Moreover, as our standards of living improve and our food consumption increases, the laws of nature will mean—as they often do—that sewerage systems will come under even greater pressure, and the rivers will receive an even more generous gift from the Welsh water authority's sewage outfall pipes.
  Perhaps I am being too pessimistic. Perhaps I should urge the Bill's sponsors to approach the Prime Minister with a view to expressing a vote of confidence in the suitability of the Taff's waters for containment behind a
  272
  barrage. My constituents would be only too glad to arrange a suitable location for the right hon. Lady to take a running jump into the Taff, and to show by that gesture that we have all worried far too much about the quality of the water in our most famous river. What better advertisement could there be for the barrage than a photograph of the right hon. Lady doing a crawl upstream towards the sites of the Abercynon and Merthyr Vale collieries, which her Government, in their great wisdom, recently closed? I shall oppose the construction of the barrage until I see that photograph—until I see the Prime Minister's running jump into our maltreated river.
  I, and many of my constituents, want firm gurantees and detailed timetables as to how and when the Government intend to force their incestous children—the National Rivers Authority and the Welsh water authority—to clean up the Taff and the Ely. The luxury apartments and the office blocks can wait for their shimmering lagoon, just as we in the valleys, who live along the banks of those rivers, have to wait for recognition by the Government that civil pride and environmental health take precedence over speculative profiteering.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). He has brought back some good humour to the Opposition Benches. I was worried that the warfare breaking out was too pronounced for the good of all hon. Members.
  I support the carry-over motion. I have great enthusiasm for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is an exciting proposal, but I have one great reservation about it.
  The purpose of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is to fulfil the Cardiff bay regeneration strategy which looks forward to the creation over 10 years of 30,000 new jobs, 3 million to 4 million sq ft of new office space, 5 million to 6 million sq ft of industrial and business units and 6,000 dwellings, about a quarter of which are intended to be low-cost housing—most desirable in south Cardiff and Cardiff generally. I should have thought that there would be a good measure of agreement among hon. Members about such a proposal.
  In general, who would not be excited by a package for which all who are involved in it are working so hard? I have been involved with the scheme for quite a long while—both before I became a Member of Parliament and since. I have sought to consider very carefully all that it involves. No Bill has ever come before the House with better or fuller local support.
  That is typified by Cardiff's evening newspaper, the South Wales Echo. It has written many exhaustive articles on the subject and has shown considerable enthusiasm for the project since its inception. Its municipal editor, Mr. Michael Thomas, went to Baltimore two years ago. When he returned he wrote truthfully, I believe, when he said that he had seen Cardiff's proposed future in Baltimore and that the future worked. The South Wales Echo has provided us with the only independent, professionally conducted survey of what Cardiff people feel about the redevelopment of south Cardiff and the barrage. It shows that twice as many people are in favour of the proposed development in south Cardiff, including the barrage, as oppose it.
  I am afraid that I have to reject much of what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, especially his implication concerning the Mafia-like activities of the

  273
  South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council. I should have thought that such strong criticism would have come much more naturally from me than from him. I promise him that I shall continue to criticise the South Glamorgan county council, Labour-controlled, and Cardiff city council, Labour-Liberal dominated, whenever that criticism is deserved, but on this occasion I do not believe that it is deserved. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. Morgan: I said that I offered no criticism of the local authorities involved.
  Mr. Jones: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I thought that he implied that he was very critical of what they had done. It was a criticism that I could not share. I repeat my assurance that I shall criticise them as much as they deserve whenever they deserve criticism, but on this occasion I offer a tribute, on a strictly non-political basis, to the Labour and Conservative leaders of South Glamorgan county council, Lord Brooks and Councillor Gareth Neale, who have been very full-hearted and thorough in pursuing the proposal. Equally, I pay tribute to the Conservative and Labour leaders of Cardiff city council—Councillor Ron Watkiss and Councillor John Reynolds—who played important parts in the discussions. It occurs to me that three of those are on the board of Cardiff bay development corporation, as is Councillor Paddy Kitson, who has played a significant role in the considerations of this matter.
  Councillor Paddy Kitson stood for re-election in May. His ward and the one alongside are the wards most affected by the proposals. When he stood for election as the Labour candidate, as did his neighbour, they were opposed by anti-barrage candidates. Although I would not have voted for either of the Labour candidates, they were re-elected with resounding majorities even against the anti-barrage candidates, the Conservative candidates and the other candidates who stood against them. That is a significant demonstration of how local people feel about the role of their local councillors in the project and the worth of the barrage project and the redevelopment of south Cardiff.
  Mention has been made of the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and his predecessor, and their support for the proposal. It is commendable and even admirable that Secretaries of State have been prepared to devote so much time and interest to giving their fullest support to such a proposal. Cardiff should be very grateful that they have supported all 'Our efforts. I should add that perhaps the founding fathers of the proposals were my predecessor and the predecessor of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), Lord Callaghan and the late Michael Roberts. Their views on this matter were probably the original catalyst for the redevelopment of south Cardiff. By no means would I take credit for the project as solely a Conservative idea. The Labour party, Lord Callaghan and everyone else in Cardiff had been involved right from the beginning. It is an excellent example of political parties coming together to achieve real benefit for the capital city of Wales.
  While I am seeking to pay tribute to those who have worked so hard, it would be entirely inappropriate not to mention those who have been involved on the professional side, particularly the chief executive of South Glamorgan
  274
  county council, Mr. Michael Boyce, Mr. Iwan Humphreys and all the other officers of South Glamorgan county council, as well as Mr. Geoffrey Inkin and Mr. Barry Lane of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
  The relationship between the development corporation, the local authorities and everyone else involved has been a good one. That has been most important. It is quite right that the project was entrusted to a development corporation as the most appropriate way of moving forward. That said, it was inevitable that there should be some conflict and even dramatic moments in the press, but all has been happily resolved and the good relationship has been continuing.
  It has been marked particularly by a willingness to accommodate every point of view and every possible problem that has been raised. South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff Bay development corporation have taken the lead in trying to identify the problems that have arisen with the south Cardiff redevelopment and the barrage proposal. The most comprehensive technical studies have been carried out and their findings have been met by a willingness to respond properly.
  A particularly important clause is clause 12, which contains most important provisions for homes and for owners of property which might be affected by changes in the groundwater in Cardiff. The Cardiff flood action committee was equally inspirational in suggesting that such an important clause should be included in the Bill. That suggestion was immediately met, or anticipated, by a ready response from the promoters of the Bill.
  The Bill provides for redevelopment with the barrage as its central feature. The barrage is fundamental for it brings about the greatest change to the landscape of south Cardiff. The mudflats at low tide are not an attractive feature. We have a rare opportunity to repair the effect of industrial change. How often we have to put up with industrial change and decay marking our landscape. The mudflats at Cardiff bay were created by the construction of Cardiff docks 150 years ago. The barrage will end those ugly and unattractive mudflats.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Shame.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has had his say. I shall shortly express substantial agreement with what he said, but not on this point.
  The barrage is a green proposal. Friends of the Earth opposed a marine development at Porthcawl because it did not include a barrage such as that proposed for south Cardiff. Its contention at the inquiry was that a barrage is essential to meet the forthcoming problems of the greenhouse effect.
  Every possible attempt has been made to measure the worth of the barrage. In 1986, the Cardiff Bay development corporation commissioned Peat, Marwick, McLintock to carry out an independent appraisal of what the barrage can best be expected to achieve, not simply on a barrage or no-barrage basis but including the middle course of a mini-barrage. Peat, Marwick, McLintock estimated, on the best basis, that having no barrage as part of the south Cardiff redevelopment would attract £523 million of investment, that a mini-barrage would attract £607 million, but that the barrage would attract £1,051 million of private investment. It further estimated that no

  275
  barrage would generate 12,700 jobs, that a mini-barrage would generate 14,950 but that the barrage would generate 22,150 jobs.
  Peat, Marwick, McLintock sought to measure that by comparing the amount of public sector capital being invested with private investment. No barrage would produce a ratio of private investment to public sector investment of 4·6:1, a mini-barrage would produce a ratio of 4·8:1, and the barrage 8·9:1. It next sought to calculate the net value of the proposal for the Cardiff area. No barrage would lead to greater expenditure than return and a loss of £61 million and a mini-barrage would lead to a loss of £113 million. The only positive return that it could identify was for the barrage, producing a return of £77 million. The study also showed similar declines in the residential sector, offices, industrial and business use and retail. It could even measure reduced achievement in the categories of leisure and open spaces, although the mini-barrage proposal produced less open space than no barrage.
  That was an independent and persuasive appraisal. The economic case for the barrage is overwhelming, and it will be of much benefit to south Wales. We know from current studies that one third of the jobs in Cardiff are for commuters, most of whom live in the valleys. That is bound to be reflected in the new jobs created by the south Cardiff development. It will lead not to prosperity confined to Cardiff but to prosperity and worth for all south Wales.
  In Cardiff and in the House tonight, many concerns have been expressed, such as concern about flooding. We in Cardiff all remember the flooding in 1979, when large parts of Cardiff were badly affected. Earlier in the 1960s there was flooding further afield that affected parts of my constituency in Gabalfa and Llandaff North. Time after time, it has been shown that the cause of flooding is the combination of heavy rain swelling the rivers and flowing down to Cardiff and meeting a high tide from the sea. Research shows that the barrage would assist in flood prevention because it would break the link between a high incoming tide and heavy rain flowing down the river. The concern about flooding is not a valid reason for not further pursuing the barrage.
  The House of Lords Select Committee considered the quality of the water to be impounded behind the barrage and, in its kindly way, concluded that some of the more extreme suggestions—which we have heard again tonight—were unduly pessimistic. I suggest that hon. Members should look at the water at Atlantic wharf, if they have not already done so. That is an example, beside the new headquarters of South Glamorgan county council, of exactly the kind of water that will be present behind the barrage. It is not blue water, but we do not have blue water in Cardiff at the moment. It is not as bad as some of the water elsewhere, and it certainly defies the criticism that has already been made.
  Mr. Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that lorryloads of algae had to be removed in early September from the Atlantic wharf water because the combination of sunlight warming the water and the high percentage of treated sewage coming down the river in the summer
  276
  resulted in algal blooms and that that would occur on a much larger scale in the much greater impounded waters of the bay.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that fact. As we all know, the waters behind the barrage will be properly managed, with all the appropriate technology. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confirming what can happen when there is proper management, while at the same time disabusing us of the idea that there will be a polluted lagoon behind the barrage.
  Groundwater is another major concern. There is a general measure of agreement on this matter. It is another example of the willingness of the Cardiff Bay development corporation to respond to all the problems. Appropriate provision for a protected property area is made in clause 12, but the clause goes beyond that matter. I am happy to see that my constituency of Cardiff, North is provided for in the Bill. It has been pointed out to me that the provision goes much further—in fact worldwide. It has been said that any citizen, anywhere, could make a claim to the Cardiff Bay development corporation that he had somehow suffered because of the creation of the barrage. That is certainly much further than a general provision in legislation.
  The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is not in the Chamber, strongly criticised the leaflet published by the Bill's promoters. He suggested more than once that the leaflet contained lies and that the statement that groundwater did not rise was not true. I am not a geologist. I have to listen to what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am afraid that he does not convince me. I imagine that there must be percolation of groundwater, but surely groundwater must still obey the laws of gravity. As he said in his example, groundwater can emerge from a mountain, but that is because gravity causes the water to flow down inside the mountain. I have not seen mountains in south Cardiff.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) was critical of the technical evidence before the House of Lords Select Committee. I understand that experts for the promoters and for the groundwater petitioners were called and that their evidence showed that there was only one matter of disagreement between them—that there had not been an opportunity within the period of the study to measure what happened during three or four days of heavy rain. Both groups of experts agreed that, even if the contention of the groundwater petitioners were true, there would be no effect beyond the protected property area, and that there was no need to extend it.
  The House of Lords Select Committee fully considered this matter. I concur with the provisions which are outlined in the leaflet and the practical responses in terms of infilling and insulation. It is little wonder that the Select Committee's report said:
  "The Committee concluded that Clause 12 does provide a comprehensive set of measures to deal with the effects of rise in groundwater and that the procedures embodied in the Clause were fair."
  I have a great reservation—on which I find myself in some measure of agreement with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—about the future of wading birds. In 1986, I expressed my concern in the House for the future of the site of special scientific interest. It is true that the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology has reported on the Taff-Ely estuary and has determined that it is not a site of international significance. The Royal Society for the

  277
  Protection of Birds, in its last publication, "The Complete Book of British Birds"—which was to celebrate 100 years of the RSPB—made no mention of the Taff-Ely estuary. The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology has said, however, that the site is of national significance. It has 1·2 per cent. of the British population of redshanks and dunlins. There is a risk of permanent loss and a need for compensation.
  The SSSI is part of the Severn estuary SSSI, and while it is only 1 per cent. of the area, it includes 10 per cent. of the birds. The RSPB has told me that there are approximately 8,000 to 10,000 wading birds in the Taff-Ely estuary, and that the area is particularly significant for its redshank population. Redshanks are declining elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but thankfully, not in the Taff estuary, where the population of about 1,500 is staying firm.
  I am glad that compensatory measures have been proposed in the Bill. That is an innovation which might be worthy of development elsewhere. They involve some 50 acres of land, at a cost of £3·5 million.
  I understand that there will be discussions between the promoters of the Bill, the Nature Conservancy Council and the RSPB. Filling the barrage will take some weeks, and I hope that their discussions will also include the best time to fill the barrage, so that the best transition can be achieved.
  My great regret is that no one can guarantee how effective the compensatory features will be. I greatly regret the likely loss of birds and the fact that we have to choose between the present and an uncertain future. I fervently hope that there will be progress towards a target of no loss.
  So much time, effort and money has been put into the Bill that it would be a great tragedy if the motion were not passed this evening, and all that work were wasted. The important issues which must be given further consideration deserve to be put before a Select Committee of the House. I am confident that any new feature will be fully considered and that all those features we already know about will continue to have the fullest consideration. I hope that we can move forward, because I believe that the future is exciting.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I have given a great deal of consideration to the Bill and to whether to support the carry-over motion. I made a final check with the National Rivers Authority this afternoon, and I feel that the information it gave me negated one of the principal reasons for building the barrage.
  I did not intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) when he mentioned the independent opinion poll. It was commissioned by the South Wales Echo, which has supported the barrage from the beginning and so is hardly a disinterested observer. A fine opinion poll has been conducted in Cardiff, where 423 people were interviewed, 190 from the affected area, spanning an age range of between 18 and 70-plus, which parallels the age structure of the population. Just over 50 per cent. were women. The outcome of that survey was that fewer than 7 per cent. favoured the barrage, 36 per cent. wanted the area to be cleaned up and landscaped, 27 per cent. thought that there should be further development with an emphasis on a wildlife site, 48 per cent. were in favour of a smaller barrage and 13 per cent. selected other options.
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend suggests that there is a groundswell of opinion against the barrage. A number of candidates in recent elections stood on an anti-barrage platform. Can my hon. Friend say how many were successful? He has suggested that the South Wales Echo was partial in the poll which it published. How independent are the people who published the poll which he has mentioned?
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall make no comment on the partiality of the people I mentioned, as I believe—the same is true of the Echo—that they have their own commitment and selected their sample in good faith. I do not think that that is an issue. I think my hon. Friend knows that it is rare for one issue to dominate an election, whether people stand for a political party or as independent candidates.
  I shall move on to some of the substantive points. I oppose the private Bill procedure in principle. One reason for that is that projects carried through under the private Bill procedure are automatically excluded from the rigours of European Community directive on environmental assessment, so a proper environmental impact assessment based on the EC criteria cannot be made.
  I have been approached on the matter several times and I was first approached on it when I was the Member of the European Parliament for South Wales, a constituency that includes Cardiff. I was especially struck by a letter from a friend who is an engineer and describes himself also as an angler, conservationist and ratepayer of Cardiff. He made several salient points about the whole scheme, and was especially upset that the promoters should have gone ahead with the Bill before they had completed the studies that were necessary to ensure that they could overcome the concerns expressed when news of the project first came to light. My friend mentioned problems such as environmental pollution, sedimentation build-up and difficulties for migratory fish, which I should have liked to deal with in detail on other occasions when I had more time.
  However, I shall deal in a little detail with water quality. It seems that one of the main reasons why the barrage was mooted originally was to provide an area that would not only look nice, but would be a centre for water sports. Such a target is now impossible. When I contacted the National Rivers Authority this afternoon to find out its feelings about the barrage, it told me that although it would be possible to meet the E. coli coliform standard of the EC directive on bathing water quality, there would be huge problems with the microbiological quality of the water and specifically, the organism called leptospira, which carries Weil's disease which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) mentioned earlier, is a killer. As a result, the National Rivers Authority, in conjunction with the environmental health department of Cardiff city council, has made it clear that it will allow no water contact sports in the lagoon created by the barrage.
  Furthermore, when I questioned the experts at the National Rivers Authority, they said that there would be a problem in providing a reasonable quality of water that would even look acceptable, although it would not be safe for anyone to fall into it. Although the Bill provided for a scheme for water sports, there are question marks over the times of flooding. It has already been said this evening that the Taff and its tributaries tend to rise very quickly so that there are problems about the boom and the other provisions that are intended to take out debris and the sewage that makes its way down the river. I remind the

  279
  House that a sewage mains under the Taff once burst and for a time raw sewage flowed down the river. The problems of coping with the River Taff in spate and of removing the debris mean that the measures might not deal effectively with the problem.
  Mr. Rogers: I assure my hon. Friend that raw sewage already enters the tributaries feeding the lagoon. The Welsh water authority is not renewing the trunk sewer systems in some of the valleys, so raw sewage enters the river.
  Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend.
  I do not oppose the development of Cardiff docklands but, with all the problems associated with providing a lagoon, the purpose of which is no longer relevant because water quality is not right, I hope that we shall throw out the carry-over motion and ask the promoters, if they must come back with a new scheme, to do so without the barrage.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I am the only non-Welsh Member to have spoken so far in the debate. I wish to speak because I am an elected member of the council for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I have taken a close interest in the matter, as has the society, which is Europe's largest voluntary organisation concerned with the matter. It has members in every constituency.
  I have another reason for wishing to speak, which has nothing to do with the promoter of the Bill or the people behind it. The procedure on private Bills is a corrupt system which should be ended. The matter would be better dealt with by a public inquiry in Cardiff than by the House.
  Normally, I would not wish to become involved in any issue that is mainly the concern of the people of Cardiff but, as has already been said, the bay is of national significance because of its value for wildlife and conservation. It is to that aspect that I shall address my remarks.
  I accepted a kind invitation from the Cardiff Bay development corporation to meet it in Cardiff. I must add that I travelled there at my own expense, during my holidays. While I had a meeting with my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), my wife and family were let loose in Cardiff, which was of more benefit to Cardiff city centre than to me. I had an opportunity to see the problems at first hand, so I speak as someone who has taken the trouble to go to Cardiff and talk to the corporation to hear both sides of the argument.
  Conservative Members spoke about mud, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that mud in Cardiff stinks. It may stink now, but that is caused by the sewage outfalls and effluents in the rivers Taff and Ely. Those effluents will be trapped behind the barrage if it is constructed. The scheme could be a potential asset to the city if the money for the barrage went instead to clean up the bay, landscape the area and maximise its attraction to wildlife.
  I was taken down to look at the mud. The visit was carefully timed, so that I could see the vast expanses of mud at low tide. My guides said, "Just look at that." I
  280
  thought that it was an attractive sight, but I accept that not everyone would share my view. I noted that there was a substantial housing development in Penarth dock. It was popular and the houses had sold well, even though they overlooked the mudflats. While there may be people who would not want to buy a house overlooking mudflats, many people would be delighted with the ever-changing scenery of a tidal estuary with the tide coming in and out, the ebb and flow, the birds' moods and the call of birds on the wing, which are all attractive. Some developers have made it clear that they do not need the barrage in order to build homes and attract inward investment. Some of the figures that have been quoted have been mathematical rather than relating to reality.
  The displacement of bird species from Cardiff bay is of national importance to a number of species, particularly redshanks, dunlins and knots. It is not true to say that those species can simply move out of Cardiff bay and find a nice vacant mudflat in the Severn estuary. Those feeding areas are already occupied and would not take any more feeding species. The birds would either displace the species that are there already or, even worse, by competing for food in a reduced feeding area, ensure that none of the species on those feeding grounds would get enough energy. If there was a cold snap during the winter, it would be likely that large numbers of species would be unable to survive.
  It is also likely that migrating birds which are travelling through the Cardiff bay area would be unable to feed adequately to build up their body fats for the migration. The mortality rate in the species could be greater than the present population.
  A paper written by M. E. Moser, entitled "Importance of UK Estuaries for Waders and Wildfowl", bears out these points:
  "For example, the numbers of redshanks on the firth of Clyde crashed during the 1980s, probably as a result of a decrease in the available food resources. There have been massive declines in bartailed godwits, knots and dunlins on the Cheshire/Welsh Dee estuary".
  When there is already a decline in species because of loss of feeding grounds and habitat, we cannot displace birds from Cardiff Bay and expect them to survive.
  I pay tribute to the development corporation and to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who is genuinely concerned about these conservation aspects. The Bill's promoters deserve some credit for taking these matters seriously and trying to meet the genuine points which have been put forward by the conservationists.
  The Wentloog proposal is interesting and radical in terms of providing an adequate alternative feeding ground. Unfortunately, at the moment there is insufficient information to determine whether it will be completely successful. I am not sure whether the enormous resources would be available to protect a site of this sort from the inevitable silting.
  I realise that time is short, and this is a debate on the carry-over motion. If there is a Second Reading debate, I should like to expand these points. In terms of the carry-over motion, arguments from people such as me, conservation organisations and development corporations hinge purely on the barrage. The promoters should consider taking the Bill back to concentrate on the developments which we all support. The regeneration is

  281
  imaginative and practical for Cardiff, but we do not need a barrage; by abandoning it and transferring resources, we could create an even better and more successful scheme.
  9.43 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Any hon. Member who speaks in a debate on a private Bill which appears, at least in its title, to be a local Bill, has to justify his or her intervention. There is one basic reason for an intervention: if the Bill has broader, national implications. My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and other hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill have already shown that the significance and importance of this Bill transcends its apparently local character.
  There has been an amazing omission in this debate and in much of the evidence taken in the other place. Another reason why the Bill is not just a local one is its huge and significant public expenditure consequences, which have not been explained tonight. That is why I reacted so violently when the Minister rose and sat down in 30 seconds flat, simply saying that the Bill would have substantial expenditure consequences for his Department. The House is being asked to pass a carry-over motion on a Bill whose public expenditure consequences have not been explained. I make no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has enough to deal with in promoting the Bill and opening the debate on the motion, but except in one sentence, he did not mention public expenditure. As a valleys Member, I have a vested interest in knowing the overall sums, where the money will come from, what proportion will be paid by the ratepayers of south Glamorgan or of the city council and what proportion will come from the national purse—that is, the Welsh Office and its various agencies and bodies.
  Mr. Michael: These are matters of considerable detail, and in coming to a conclusion, we should discuss the expenditure and match it with the benefit that will result. However, should not these matters be properly investigated by the Select Committee?
  Mr. Rowlands: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the way that my hon. Friend has minimised the argument, by saying that all this can be dealt with in Committee. When public Bills are introduced, their financial implications are spelt out from the start. Attached to the original Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill was a financial memorandum, which contained the first information about expenditure that we were given. It is not attached to the Bills that we have now—it seems to have been taken off. It said:
  "The Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment have said in a joint report to Parliament that … it would be the Government's intention that the cost of the barrage as at present estimated would be met by the Development Corporation with the assistance of a grant-in-aid provided by the Welsh Office."
  In other words, this will be publicly funded by the Welsh Office. It continued:
  "The expenditure on construction of the proposed works is estimated at £82,230,000. The expenditure on the acquisition of lands and easements for the works is estimated at £2,550,000.
  We know that the initial public expenditure implications of the Bill, according to the financial memorandum, will be about £85 million. However, that is misleading
  282
  because in the cross-examination of the promoters of the Bill in the other place, the figures turned out to be very different. There is an admission that a high level of public expenditure in the barrage site is essential to the scheme. The Minister, the promoters and certainly Tory Members, who have strong views about public expenditure, have to justify this level of expenditure. What is the expenditure to be? The cost of the barrage is estimated to be £113 million plus. Presumably, that will be substantially funded by the Welsh Office. Perhaps the Minister will intervene now and tell us what portion of that £113 million will be funded by the Welsh Office, as opposed to the county council or local government.
  That is not the end of it. That is only a small proportion of the total public expenditure consequences of the Bill. Again in the evidence presented in the other place, we are told that in addition to the £113 million—not the £85 million in the financial memorandum—there is a land reclamation cost of £15 million. I have an interest in land reclamation schemes because my constituency has, I believe, the largest concentration of derelict industrial land, certainly in Wales and probably in the United Kingdom as a whole. There will also be depollution costs of £60 million and combined road schemes costing another £118 million.
  Therefore, the total possible public expenditure consequences of the Bill, about which not one word has been said this evening and not a single figure given by the Minister, are of over £400 million. That is what, in another place, the promoters agreed were the total barrage plus infrastructure costs of the scheme.
  The Minister is in dereliction of his duty to the House by not giving that information. Indeed, one principle upon which the parliamentary system was founded was the scrutiny and accountability of public funds. If there was no other case for opposing the carry-over motion, sufficient reason would be that until the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us what proportion of that £400 million-plus will be funded by central Government, as opposed to what might be raised by the ratepayers of South Glamorgan, the Bill should not proceed. It is all very well for local authorities to promote big, important schemes—we have all been party to this and have argued for and promoted them—but if the funds are to come not from local government, but from central Government, interest in the measure must transcend the boundaries of any one local authority. This is a matter of national interest. It is certainly of interest to the Principality to know where that £400 million-plus will come from.
  I turn now to a point about which we have heard nothing. Again, I do not in any way blame my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for this because he had a lot to explain at the beginning of the debate, and in the numerous interventions, cross-references and points of order, he might have overlooked telling the House this other fact. Despite the amazing appendix on the barrage's tremendous economic benefits, in City terms, the evidence that was submitted to the other place on the operating costs of the barrage estimated that the revenue from the barrage—the fees or whatever—will amount to £475 million, whereas the costs of operating the barrage will be £1·1 billion. Even according to the promoters, there will be a net operational loss of £652 million. Who will fund that? Will it be funded by the ratepayers or will the Welsh Office make an on-going contribution?

  283
  The Government want to carry over a Bill with capital expenditure consequences of more than £400 million and to include a net £600 million operating cost on top, yet we still do not know what proportion of that will be paid from central Government funds.
  We have been told that Parliament has already thoroughly investigated the scheme and that the Bill has come down to us with the blessing of their Lordships. I have looked through the 16 volumes of evidence to try to find the answers to the questions that I have asked and which the Minister has failed to answer about the contribution from central Government funds. The best that one can find in the evidence is an exchange between Mr. Geoffrey Inkin, who I think is the chairman of the corporation, and the cross-examiners. At one point, the chairman of the inquiry asked Mr. Inkin:
  "Do I understand that £250m will come straight from Government funding and the £150m will come from increased land values?"
  The answer was:
  "No, £75m–£125m. Is the sum, to be precise."
  Well, £75 million to £125 million is certainly a precise sum. Mr. Inkin's answer continued:
  "One is talking about a total sum of public funding of something of the order of £300m–£350m. There are additional sources of funding, but relatively minor key."
  To the next question of
  "That makes up the balance between £300m and £350m and the £400m?"
  Mr. Inkin replied:
  "Much of the balance of about £75m is in fact to go towards the cost of the peripheral distributor road which comes out of transport supplementary grant to the County Council. We may make a subscription on a proportion."
  That is supposed to be the lucid evidence, given under cross-examination, that results in the Bill being given the blessing of their Lordships. As far as I can tell, that was the sum of the evidence covering the public expenditure implications of the Bill.
  For no other reason, I beg hon. Members not to agree to the Bill being carried over, certainly not until we are given an effective assessment—a real financial memorandum—showing the true cost of the measure to the public and particularly to the national purse.
  Perhaps the most telling argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—at any rate, in his view—was that we must not oppose major developments in view of the effect that our action might have on jobs and the future of the city. When reading the evidence given in this matter—I was in the Private Bill Office—I discovered that the chief counsel for South Glamorgan county council was a long-standing adversary of mine, a wealthy gentleman named Peter Boydell, probably the country's No. 1 planning QC.
  The last time I saw Mr. Boydell in action was when he was advocating a grandiose city centre development for Cardiff. I was reminded of all the arguments that we heard, back in the late 1960s, when I was active—hon. Members will agree that I acted effectively—in opposing that grandiose scheme. Almost identical arguments to those now being adduced for the barrage scheme were made on that occasion, including the attempt to blackmail us into believing that more jobs were at stake, that the proposed hook road would solve the urban traffic problems of the
  284
  city and that such a development, along with the creation of a huge shopping centre, was the only way for a capital city to develop.
  It was to the good fortune of us all that that scheme fell and the hook road was not built. Instead there emerged the sort of development for which we were arguing—the organic development of the city. It has since developed in the way that we hoped. Today, Cardiff city centre is one of the finest of any city. That has happened not as the result of any grandiose scheme but for the reverse reason—because we turned our backs on huge developments and went for the sensible, progressive, organic development of the city.
  There is a parallel between the change of attitude on that occasion and the consideration that we are giving to the barrage today. We rejected that grandiose scheme 20 years ago, and that led to the fine city centre that Cardiff now has. By saying no to the carry-over tonight, there will be a rethink of the whole issue, just as occurred 20 years ago. I hope that, following that rethink, there will emerge a consensus for the idea of a mini-barrage, which will overcome many of the objections that have been voiced on conservation grounds and which will not make the sort of demands on public expenditure that the barrage scheme would make.
  It has been suggested that we should not make this an argument of valley versus the city of Cardiff. We do not want that to happen, but we are jealous of the relative proportions of public expenditure that is devoted to the city and to valley communities such as mine. The public expenditure consequences of the Bill and the large proportion of money that one suspects will come from Welsh Office funds make the Secretary of State's Valleys initiative look like an extremely meagre affair.
  There are many reasons why the Bill should not be carried over, including the wider, broader national issues that have been mentioned. People who 10 years ago would have dismissed arguments about the needs of wading birds have now become aware of the enormous long-term significance of conservation—
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Michael rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 58.

  Division No. 407]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Alton, David

  Butler, Chris

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Ashby, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Coleman, Donald

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Couchman, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Cox, Tom

  Bright, Graham

  Crowther, Stan

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Curry, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  285

  Day, Stephen

  Mills, Iain

  Dixon, Don

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Durant, Tony

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Evennett, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Neubert, Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Favell, Tony

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Norris, Steve

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Flynn, Paul

  Page, Richard

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Paice, James

  Forman, Nigel

  Parry, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Forth, Eric

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Foster, Derek

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Franks, Cecil

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Fraser, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Freeman, Roger

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  French, Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Gill, Christopher

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Robertson, George

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Rost, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Gregory, Conal

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Grist, Ian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Ground, Patrick

  Shelton, Sir William

  Hague, William

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Harris, David

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Haynes, Frank

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Squire, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stern, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Irvine, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Strang, Gavin

  Kilfedder, James

  Summerson, Hugo

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Knapman, Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Knowles, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Knox, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lang, Ian

  Tredinnick, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Trotter, Neville

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lightbown, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Wallace, James

  Lord, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McFall, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Wheeler, John

  Maclean, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  McWilliam, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mans, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Mr. Gwilym Jones and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Michael, Alun

  286

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Barron, Kevin

  McCartney, Ian

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McWilliam, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Caborn, Richard

  Martlew, Eric

  Clay, Bob

  Meale, Alan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Corbett, Robin

  Morley, Elliot

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Patchett, Terry

  Cousins, Jim

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cryer, Bob

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Redmond, Martin

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Richardson, Jo

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

  Rogers, Allan

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

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

  Rowlands, Ted

  Flannery, Martin

  Short, Clare

  Fyfe, Maria

  Skinner, Dennis

  Galloway, George

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

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Hood, Jimmy

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Illsley, Eric

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lamond, James

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Litherland, Robert

  Dr. Kim Howells and Mr. Win Griffiths.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly:
  The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 48.

  Division No. 408]

  [10.12 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alton, David

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Durant, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Ashby, David

  Evennett, David

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Favell, Tony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Boswell, Tim

  Flynn, Paul

  Bowis, John

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Boyes, Roland

  Forman, Nigel

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Foster, Derek

  Brazier, Julian

  Franks, Cecil

  Bright, Graham

  Fraser, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Freeman, Roger

  Buck, Sir Antony

  French, Douglas

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Butler, Chris

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gregory, Conal

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Coleman, Donald

  Grist, Ian

  Colvin, Michael

  Ground, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Hague, William

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Corbett, Robin

  Harris, David

  Couchman, James

  Haynes, Frank

  Cox, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Curry, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dixon, Don

  Irvine, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  287

  Kilfedder, James

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robertson, George

  Knapman, Roger

  Rost, Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knowles, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knox, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lightbown, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Lord, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  McFall, John

  Squire, Robin

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  McWilliam, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mans, Keith

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Meale, Alan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Michael, Alun

  Thorne, Neil

  Mills, Iain

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tredinnick, David

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Trotter, Neville

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wallace, James

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Waller, Gary

  Murphy, Paul

  Ward, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Neubert, Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wheeler, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Norris, Steve

  Wilkinson, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Paice, James

  Wood, Timothy

  Parry, Robert

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Patchett, Terry

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Mr. Gwilym Jones and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Bob

  Buckley, George J.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Caborn, Richard

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

  Clay, Bob

  Fatchett, Derek

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Faulds, Andrew

  Corbyn, Jeremy

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

  288

  Flannery, Martin

  Richardson, Jo

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Illsley, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lamond, James

  Short, Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  McCartney, Ian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Martlew, Eric

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Dr. Kim Howells and Mr. Win Griffiths.

  Redmond, Martin

  Question agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  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 deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
  Ordered,
  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;
  Ordered,
  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;
  Ordered,
  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;
  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.

  Medical and Pharmaceutical Services (Scotland)
  Mr. Bob Cryer:: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a note on the Order Paper that
  "The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments."
  That is no longer accurate. It was considered by the Committee this afternoon. We did not have time further to examine the instrument, but the Committee does not wish to draw the attention of the House to any defect in it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that clear.
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1990), dated 31st October 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st November, be annulled.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to a large number of defects in the regulations. I intend to do so briskly because there is just over an hour in which to debate them, and many of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate.
  We have some fundamental objections to the regulations. I make no apology for having prayed against them and I make no apology either, for inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against them. Our first and very obvious objection, with which the Minister will be familiar, is that the GPs' contract is being imposed despite the overwhelming opposition of the vast majority of doctors in Scotland. Their dislike of and objections to the contract are shared by the public and are certainly supported by the Opposition.
  I want to make it clear that not every proposed change is offensive or unacceptable in itself. For example there are provisions to give individual patients more information about practices and to give them the ability to move from list to list, there is an incentive for doctors to undertake their own night calls and there are a number of other matters with which there is no great quarrel and which will have a fair degree of support. But that is not the essence of the matter.
  The imposition of the contract has been necessary because it represents a substantial switch in general paractitioners' incomes to capitation fees. There is no doubt that there has been a marked switch of emphasis. I understand that it is intended that capitation fees should rise from about 45 or 46 per cent. of the income of a practice to about 60 per cent. We fear that the effect will be that fewer doctors will see more patients and that that will build in an incentive to increase patient numbers and cut the time that a doctor spends with each patient. That has been considered over a lengthy period and there has been a spirited public debate. In the parallel debate on the English instruments, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) drew attention to the findings of the Select Committee on Social Services in 1987 which recorded:
  290
  "the proposal to increase the proportion of a general practitioner's income derived from capitation was universally opposed."
  Since then, the opposition has become even more marked, more vociferous and more strongly based on public opinion.
  As the Minister will no doubt concede, the proposals before us represent the reversal of a change in policy that took place in the 1960s. Until then GPs' remuneration was based almost entirely on capitation fees. That became unpopular and was widely considered as an unsatisfactory system. In 1964, or around that time, under the then Labour Government, there was a major renegotiation which produced a hybrid system. Capitation fees remained important, but there was a substantial switch to fees and allowances. At the same time the Government guaranteed two thirds of the cost of practice workers and a number of other matters.
  That essential shift in the balance between capitation and other forms of income, was negotiated on the basis of experience and consensus with the medical profession and with those who were interested in the future of primary medicine under the Health Service. We are now seeing an about-turn. We are being asked to move backwards at the command of the new Right and if we do that it will be to the detriment of the service and the disadvantage of the patient.
  No doubt the Minister will argue that there are safeguards in the new Scottish contract, and perhaps he will say a word or two about them. He may point to the operation of the Scottish rural practice fund which is well established and well understood and has been a well-targeted project based largely on a capitation element for smaller practices. Of course there will have to be an increase in the Scottish rural practice fund. I am particularly interested in how that will be paid and whether it will be indexed to keep pace with the cost of living or will take account of the substantial shift towards capitation fees in general practitioners' remuneration. Clearly, if the capitation fee becomes more important and increases as a proportion of the total, small practices are likely to suffer as it grows. If they are to get anything like satisfactory protection, it is essential that we receive assurances from the Minister that the rural practice fund will increase more than simply by the cost of living to take account of that. If our protestations are to carry any credibility, it would be very helpful if the Minister were specific on that point.
  The deprivation allowance is a new payment introduced by the contract. It is referred to in paragraph 12 of the contract as an amendment to regulation 31. We know that deprivation is a problem in Scottish society. I draw the House's attention—I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with it—to an article that appeared in the 7 October issue of the British Medical Journal. The authors of the article, Vera Carstairs and Russell Morris, set out the stark facts of deprivation in Scotland and the marked connection between those facts and mortality rates. The comparison between the percentage value of components of deprivation in Scotland and those in England and Wales is harsh. Male unemployment is 12·7 per cent. in Scotland but 8·7 per cent. in England and Wales. The figure for housing overcrowding is 25·3 per cent. in Scotland but 5·8 per cent. in England and Wales.

  291
  Among the social indicators, 41·2 per cent. of the population in Scotland have no car, whereas the figure for England and Wales is 24·4 per cent.
  The article says that 24 per cent. of the population of England and Wales live in what are described as affluent conditions—category 1 conditions—whereas the same category embraces only 6 per cent. of the population of Scotland. That is a worrying factor and is perhaps a reproach to us all, but it is directly reflected in the workload of general practitioners and in the Scottish mortality rates. It is depressing to discover that mortality rates in Scotland are 16 or 17 per cent., depending on gender, above those in England and Wales. That is a startling fact.
  The Minister may say, "So what?" There may be a tendency to shrug that off, or we may be told that it will be cured by a good dose of the enterprise culture blown away by the healthy enema of Thatcherism, but none of us believes that for a moment.
  The impact of deprivation on GPs' work loads is well documented. Research shows that male patients in Scotland aged 65 to 74 have six consultations per annum, whereas in England and Wales it is only five. The figure for females is seven in Scotland and five in England and Wales. Perhaps that difference is marginal, but if it is aggregrated across the caseload of a busy practice or across a community it represents a substantial distinction and underlines the potential importance of the deprivation premium. It futher underlines the importance of how funds will be allocated once they are being paid. That is the second point that I ask the Minister to consider and say a little about.
  I understand that over the years the Scottish Office has established acceptable methods of calculating deprivation factors in individual practices. I should like to know what the allocation to Scotland will be for the deprivation allowance. If it is to be paid on a population ratio, we should expect about 9 or 10 per cent., but clearly that would be a mockery given the facts to which I have referred and the overwhelming rate of deprivation in rural and industrial Scotland. I am told that the Jarman index suggests that a fair apportionment of the national total for Scotland would be between 15 and 20 per cent.
  A decision must be made, in principle at least, between the Scottish Office and the Department of Health. I hope that the Minister will say that the allocation will be based on the incidence of deprivation and not on a more arithmetical calculation that depends on population ratios. I know that the Minister will be in a position to help us, and I very much hope that he will do so.
  I shall confine the rest of my remarks to list sizes because I am aware that I must discipline my comments if other hon. Members are to speak. It would be a tragedy if the considerable advantage which is enjoyed in the Health Service in Scotland were eroded. The average practice list in Scotland is about 1,650 patients. In England, it is marginally under 2,000. There is a significant gap between the two—one gap that I do not want to see closed.
  The Under-Secretary seems determined to close that gap. That is the clear implication of his policy. The regulations are offensive because they impose a contract against the wishes of the majority of Scottish doctors and introduce changes which are not in the best interests of
  292
  patients. They make Scottish GPs more dependent on a simple head count. They build in a financial incentive to increase list sizes. They mean fewer doctors treating more patients.
  The Opposition's interest is the future of the Health Service. Efficient general practice is the necessary foundation for the specialist services that often make the headlines. I fear that the regulations are another illustration of the Government's so-called business approach to patient care taking second place to accountancy practice. For that reason, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose them.
  10.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am astonished at the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is normally more assiduous in doing his homework on these matters. He said that he had taken a lot of advice. I shall give him one piece of advice. It is certainly correct to say that GPs in Scotland enjoy smaller list sizes than doctors south of the border. One reason is the fact that, since 1979, under the Government, the number of GPs in Scotland has been increased by 14·9 per cent. The number of women doctors has been increased by about 60 per cent. Under the Conservative Government, average list sizes have fallen from 1,856 to 1,605. If we enjoy the benefits of smaller list sizes, it is because the Government have provided more doctors.
  Mr. Dewar: List sizes have always been small.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that they have always been small. In 1979, the average list size was 1,856.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe rose—
  Mr. Forsyth: In 1988, it was 1,605 because of the increase in the number of doctors that we provided.
  Mrs. Fyfe rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister appears not to be giving way.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Garscadden should take account of that fact. He has asked whether this will continue. The answer is yes. We will continue to increase the number of general practitioners. How can the hon. Gentleman argue that average list sizes will have to increase when he knows that the Government are committed to increasing the number of GPs and to increasing expenditure on these primary care services while the population remains broadly static? Elementary mathematics would enable anyone to determine that, in those circumstances, average list sizes cannot increase. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his accusation.
  Mr. Dewar: No.
  Mr. Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible to increase the number of GPs—
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am addressing my remarks, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Front-Bench spokesman—the hon. Member for Garscadden—who said that

  293
  average list sizes will have to increase. If we are going to increase the number of GPs and the population remains broadly static—everyone agrees that it will—how is it possible to argue that average list sizes will increase?
  Mr. Dewar: I am fascinated by the Minister's comments. Obviously, we will see what happens over the next year or two. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that no incentive is being built into the scheme to increase list sizes, he is the only person in Scotland who thinks so. He is used to being the only person in Scotland who thinks certain things. We have had to put up with that for a long time. Even the Secretary of State does not usually think the same things as the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that that incentive is being built in. If there is not the increase in list sizes that we predict, we will be in the odd position that the Minister's plans clearly have not worked as he intends.
  Mr. Forsyth: On the contrary. The hon. Gentleman has changed his ground. He started off by arguing that the average list size would increase. The Hansard account will show that. He is now arguing that there will be an incentive for doctors to attract patients. That is entirely different from arguing that the average list size will increase. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the average list size will increase if the number of doctors will increase. The Government have increased the number of GPs in Scotland every year by about 100 and we plan to continue to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we shall see what happens in a few years. I take that as a tacit admission that his assertion about the average list is incorrect.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: During the summer, I had occasion to visit a GP in Aberdeen as a result of a minor dietary indiscretion. He told me that the principal in the practice had retired, and that if he had known the Minister's plans, he would not have replaced the principal but carried on with fewer doctors. That is how list sizes will rise. Doctors will not be replaced. The Minister's fond claims that the number of GPs will increase will be found to be a gross overstatement.
  Mr. Forsyth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but his constituent was making the same mistake as the hon. Member for Garscadden. He is making a judgment, but no hon. Member, me included, and no doctor, knows what the result of the new contract will be for incomes. The contract will be priced not by the Government but by the doctors and dentists review body on the basis of evidence that the Government will give to it.
  We have made it perfectly clear that the purpose of the contract is to encourage doctors to extend their range of services, and to ensure that those who provide screening and meet their targets, who encourage their patients to come for check-ups and who provide additional services such as day surgery will be rewarded for doing so. I do not know what kind of service the constituent of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) provides, but many GPs in Scotland provide exactly the type of service that we want to encourage. They are the doctors who turn out in the middle of the night. The hon. Member for Garscadden was kind enough to acknowledge that there are many attractive aspects of the contract. There are doctors who are available at weekends and those who provide day surgery services. They are not sufficiently
  294
  rewarded for providing such extra services, and the contract will enable them to benefit in a way that has not been possible in the past.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: How many hours per week does the average Scottish general practitioner work?
  Mr. Forsyth: There is no such thing as an average general practitioner, but some figures have been done as a result of the work study. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to them later in my speech.
  Mr. William McKelvey: There are average budgets.
  Mr. Forsyth: There are indeed average list sizes and budgets. I said that there is no such thing as an average GP. Each GP provides a range of services that are considered appropriate to his or her patients. The contract will reward most those doctors who do most for their patients, and encourage patients to choose their doctors.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden was good enough to say that the retention of the Scottish rural practices fund will make a difference to doctors in Scotland. I think that I am entitled to observe that the contract was negotiated on a United Kingdom basis—Scottish doctors were not prepared to negotiate on a Scottish basis—and my right hon. and learned Friend was able to get the contract amended to reflect Scottish circumstances, including a reduction in list sizes required to qualify for basic practice allowance and changes, which are unique to Scotland, to reflect the position in rural and deprived areas. The pricing of the Scottish rural practice fund is a matter on which we shall be giving evidence to the doctors and dentists review body.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: That has nothing to do with the Minister.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it has nothing to do with me. I should have thought that he would have been reassured rather than alarmed by that. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that such a body will price the contract and look at the position. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would also give some credit to Ministers for having secured that. He wrote to me about the matter and has been prepared to discuss it in correspondence.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden and I can perhaps agree to acknowledge the importance of the Scottish rural practice fund. I hope that he acknowledges that it will help doctors in rural areas. What will, of course, eventually matter is the weighting that is applied and the sums of money involved—if one is concerned with incomes rather than patient care.
  Mr. Dewar: It is pleasant to have the Minister being so pleasant to me, although it is also rather worrying. He has said that he will give evidence so he must know what his Department is pressing for in this matter. Will he confirm that the evidence will be made public? What advice does he think that he will be offering to the pay review body on this matter?
  Mr. Forsyth: It is amazing how, in the past, our evidence to review bodies has become public, whether on a voluntary or involuntary basis. On the principle at stake, both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have said repeatedly that the purpose of the

  295
  contract is to ensure that doctors who provide the services that we wish to encourage benefit from it and that doctors who work in rural areas, perhaps with smaller list sizes, should not suffer. Our evidence to the review body in respect of doctors in rural areas and doctors in deprived areas will reflect that.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden also asked me about the position—
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister does not know.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North may say that I do not know, but in fact we shall say that we wish to secure a contract which ensures that doctors who are providing those services benefit as they have not done in the past. The hon. Member for Garscadden has doctors in his constituency who do that and he should be pleased that they will be in that position.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me about deprived areas and, rightly, pointed out that there were substantial areas of deprivation in Scotland, and problems of poor housing—many of them exacerbated by municipal Socialism, I might add. He says that there are problems that have an impact on the work load of GPs, and that is true. The capitation will be weighted to take account of that.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden also pressed me on how that will be done. It will be done on the basis of Jarman indices and we are currently discussing with the Scottish General Medical Services Council the most appropriate way to achieve that. As with the genesis of the contract, I want very much to proceed on the basis that in Scotland we take the advice and help that are available to us from the SGMSC. We do not always come to the conclusions that it would like, but we are entitled to say that the so-called "tartan contract" went a long way towards meeting its needs.
  Mr. Dewar: I appreciate that the Minister is being helpful and has given an interesting response. I do not want to pin him down to specific figures because that would be unfair when negotiations are in train. Would it be fair to say that the Jarman indices suggest a figure of between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the total coming to Scotland?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman begs the question. He has no doubt studied these matters carefully so he will know that the key question is whether one goes for a figure of 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent.—I had better say a number of figures so that people do not latch on to a particular one—of the Jarman indices to define the level of deprivation. That is one point that is being considered at present. The other matters on which we need to be satisfied is that those indices will operate effectively within Scotland, and we are moving towards that.
  I would be happy to consider establishing a committee drawn from various interests, as we have done successfully with the rural practice fund, to consider the implementation of this matter. I hope that I have answered as well as I could all the points made by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked me the average number of hours worked by GPs in Scotland. The figure from the 1985–86 work load survey
  296
  showed that 38 hours per week were worked—[Interruption.] Opposition Members seem surprised, but that is the figure and there has been no disagreement about it.
  The contract will ensure that services are more responsive to consumers' needs and that we raise standards of care, promote health and prevent illness, give patients the widest range of choice in obtaining high-quality primary care services, enable clearer priorities to be set for the family practitioner services in relation to the rest of the NHS and reward those doctors who do most for their patients by providing the good-quality services that we all want.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is it not the case that the new idea of paying a certain amount according to the percentage of immunisation and cervical cytology may penalise the doctor working in a difficult area who tries extremely hard to persuade people to come forward for immunisation or cervical cytology? I am thinking particularly of inner-city areas where there is a high mobility within the population and doctors have great difficulty reaching the 50 per cent. mark that has been set, particularly for cervical cytology.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady refers to a difficulty that we identified in our discussions in Scotland—which is why we opened up the possibility of the staging of target payments. I opened a health centre in Pollok, Glasgow—the sort of area the hon. Lady is thinking of—which had achieved immunisation targets in excess of 98 per cent. It had done so because it had made that goal a priority. I do not doubt that it is much harder to achieve success in some areas than in others. However, as I have just explained, in those areas where it is harder, because of the weighting on capitation to reflect deprivation, doctors will receive remuneration in addition to that which they would receive as a result of achieving their targets.
  The hon. Lady will also know that there have been anxieties about achieving the targets for cervical cytology because of, for example, patients who may have had hysterectomies. But allowance has been made for them.
  At the margin we can demonstrate that the Government have taken a flexible view, but it cannot be wrong to set as targets for Scotland—as we have done for immunization—World Health Organisation targets which have been set for developing countries. It must be right and in the interests of overall health care that those targets are achieved in Scotland.
  The remuneration of GPs in Scotland has increased dramatically under this Government. The average total remuneration went up by 37·2 per cent. ahead of inflation to £67,066. The net remuneration—perhaps the best figure to consider—is up by 22·3 per cent. ahead of inflation to £31,105. In Scotland, the number of doctors has risen since 1979 by 15 per cent. and the number of women unrestricted principals by 61 per cent., with average list sizes dropping. Our existing plans for expenditure of £525 million in the current year, rising to £560 million in 1990–91, and £610 million in 1991–92, stand. No doubt a further announcement will be made as part of the 1989 public expenditure survey.
  The contract is the logical outcome of our decision to promote better health. I commend the regulations to the House and ask for their endorsement.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. At this reasonably early stage, I should let hon. Members know that there is a lot of interest in this debate. I appeal for short speeches so that I can call most of the hon. Members who wish to take part.
  10.54 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: As late as 6 o'clock this evening, I got in touch with the local general practitioner in Springburn, Dr. Henry Bruce, and he told me that he does not know a GP who wants the Minister's contracts. That should he put on the record. Dr. Bruce also told me that, although these contracts are to be implemented in April, not a doctor in Scotland knows what remuneration he will get. The Minister tells us that there will be more doctors. Why is it that, in the Springburn-Possilpark area, health boards have refused to replace three doctors who have retired? That is not consistent with what the Minister is saying.
  The Minister keeps talking about practice budgets.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: He did not mention them.
  Mr. Martin: He may not have mentioned them tonight, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Minister has often, in correspondence with doctors in my constituency, quoted the cash budget. The Minister knows that only 6 per cent. of the practices in my constituency will benefit from this budget, because only 6 per cent. have 11,000 patients. That is the type of GP service that the Minister wants—big practices with nine doctors. That is not consistent with the personal care he talks about. He wants practices that have been in the city of Glasgow for generation after generation, passed down from father to son and now from father to daughter, to disappear, to be replaced by these big practices.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) spoke of smear tests. For one in every 10 smears taken, a fee is granted, and that fee can cover the other nine tests. Under the new proposals, it is unlikely that doctors will get a payment.
  What is the Minister talking about when he speaks of special clinics? We are talking about general practitioners who are prepared to give a comprehensive service, so that, if a patient comes in complaining of a headache and high blood pressure, that will be attended to. The Minister wants the GP to become involved in an exclusive service, with the result that one practice will specialise in high blood pressure, and others in other illnesses. That could cause patients to leave the practice that they have been going to for many years.
  The Minister knows that there have been cases in Glasgow, and other urban areas, of drug addicts calling doctors out on bogus calls and ambushing them. Some have been seriously assaulted. This happened to a Doctor Turner in Springburn. With all its faults, at least the deputising service means that in these areas, a deputising doctor can turn up with a driver, who can have the engine running so that, if there are any difficulties, they can get out quick. That is an unfortunate aspect of the society in which we live, but we have to be realistic.
  It is insulting that the Minister is prepared to offer a GP three times the amount of money to go to one of his patients that a deputising doctor will get. I do not see the logic in that. I should like to see my doctor fresh from his
  298
  surgery in the morning, and if I needed a doctor in the middle of the night, I would prefer to get a deputising doctor for that reason. The Minister knows that safety factors must be looked into in the different areas of Glasgow.
  I finish by referring briefly to the deprivation allowance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am mindful of your earlier remarks. How will the Minister draw boundaries in any city in Scotland? In some of the most deprived areas of Glasgow, there are also the most beautiful streets where well-off people live, and the reverse is also true—there are well-off areas with streets that have serious social problems. How is the Minister going to set about allocating a deprivation allowance in such a situation?
  11.1 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that we are reaching a conclusion tonight in considering these contracts because it is the end of a sad story of misinformation and misunderstanding. I know that in my constituency patients have been left in the fear that they might have a reduced medical service. That is quite incorrect. They believed, too, that general practitioners could not prescribe the required drugs; that general practitioners might send patients to hospitals far from home; and that the number of general practitioners would decrease. However, my hon. Friend the Minister has proved tonight that that is certainly not true.
  I am not surprised that, on account of all this misinformation, there was a flood of letters to many hon. Members. Patients were reacting to leaflets published by the British Medical Association and to advertisements in their local papers, which left a great deal to be desired.
  General practitioners have an important role to play in the National Health Service. I wish to pay a tribute to family doctors and their staffs for the hard work that they put in, often in inclement weather in the winter. Their work is of a high standard. The new National Health Service reforms and these doctors' contracts will make it an even better service.
  There will be more doctors—it is quite wrong for the Opposition to imply that that is not the case, because we know that the number of doctors has increased enormously under the present Government, as has the number of nurses, dentists and other specialists.
  It is right that that excellent service should be rewarded. As has been said, pay is fixed by the doctors and dentists review body. My hon. Friend the Minister stated that the average gross remuneration is about £67,000, which is 37 per cent. up in real terms since 1979. We know that there are heavy costs in any practice and that the target income or the net average return is certainly considerably less. I understand that it is about £31,000, with huge variations depending on the capitation fees. In any event, the increase in salary is certainly about 22 per cent. in real terms.
  As my hon. Friend stated, in Scotland we also take into account the rural practice fund—and all credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for negotiating that so satisfactorily in the spring. There is also an allowance for general practitioners who work single-handed in isolated areas.
  Thus, the contracts have many benefits for general practitioners. In the future, doctors will be paid for minor surgery, for child health surveillance and for health promotion clinics—all very good things. They will have

  299
  financial incentives to maximise childhood immunisations and, of course, screening for cancer, to which we all attach great importance.
  The system of target payments has already been mentioned. I think that it is perfectly fair that we set a high target of 70 to 90 per cent. for children and 50 to 80 per cent. for women. Those are the World Health Organisation's targets and I believe that in a country that has prided itself for years on its medical care, we should set our targets as high as possible. There will be a post-graduate education allowance, we have discussed the deprivation supplement and there will be more money for the capitation fee.
  In view of the criticisms that were expressed in the early spring and summer, it is important to note the benefits for women doctors. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the numbers of women doctors were up by 60 per cent. The new part-time arrangements will enable women doctors to contract to work half time or three-quarters time, and we can look forward to having many more part-time women doctors employed in practices in Scotland.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that women doctors want to work part time on such contracts? Has he not noticed the views of women doctors who are bitterly opposed to the new contract?
  Sir Hector Monro: That does not add to the debate—[Interruption.] We have 60 per cent. more women doctors and they are being given opportunities to work on a part-time basis. I should have thought that women doctors would appreciate that. As the Minister said, we are also giving higher rates for personal night visits and for the encouragement of students.
  There has been a great deal of misinformation about the practice budget. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out that it was voluntary for practices of 11,000 or more patients. The important point is that it is voluntary, so that nobody need feel that that form of auditing must be undertaken.
  The misinformation about prescribing has been extremely annoying. It was suggested that doctors would run out of money and would not be able to prescribe what they felt was clinically essential. They will not run out of money. They will be able to prescribe whatever they consider to be necessary up to £5,000, after which they will seek authority from the area health board, which I am sure will be forthcoming. It was wrong for patients to be given the impression that doctors might run out of money and be unable to prescribe what they required.
  Under the new arrangements, there will be many advantages for patients. Doctors will be available at times which suit them and it will be easier to change doctors if necessary, although I hope that that will not often be so. Elderly patients will be entitled to regular checks from 75 years of age, there will be more immunisation and preventive medicine and local facilities will be much better advertised—[Interruption.] It is surprising that Opposition Members are not taking this matter seriously. This debate is concerned with the health of the people of Scotland. The Government's proposals will do much to raise the standard of health care in Scotland and will provide more chiropodists, physiotherapists and other specialists.
  300
  All in all, this will prove to be a good contract for doctors and patients. Doctors should be better off if they provide a better service. We should encourage them to accept the contract with more enthusiasm than they have shown—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Garscadden finds this amusing. The health budget for Scotland this year stands at £2,797 million, far more than ever before, and I am confident that it will be increased when we hear tomorrow about public expenditure. We can expect a better health service than we have enjoyed before, and certainly better than we ever had when Labour Members were in power.
  11.9 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is deeply unfortunate that we are required to debate the regulations in such a short time. I am not criticising anyone for speaking for too long, but these are extremely important matters. I am sure that there is real frustration on both sides of the Chamber that there is so little time available to us.
  I accept that there are benefits under the new contract. Anyone who did not recognise that would be daft. I accept also that there is a need for change. Since 1966, when the previous substantial reform took place, many things have changed. It is proper that the Government should consider afresh the position that now obtains.
  I do not attribute any direct link to Scottish Office Ministers, but Ministers have behaved scandalously nationally in introducing imputations and insinuations against general practitioners. They have sought to advance an argument on the basis of doctors' pay, and that is wrong. The GPs to whom I have spoken are more concerned about the provision of patient care than the provision of their income.
  Some profoundly damaging consequences could flow from the changes that are being introduced if some of the worst fears that are being bruited by GPs and their representatives in Scotland come to pass. The new regulations could dramatically increase practice income. I listened with care to what the Minister said about more money being spent and more money being provided. I understand the difficulty about average lists, for example, and I agree with him that the decrease in the length of waiting lists and the increase in the number of doctors are welcome. My constituency, which is in the borders, has benefited from both trends since 1966.
  However, that is not an argument that the Minister should adduce in favour of the Government and their regulations. After all, Governments of both complexions have moved in those directions. The average list in the borders is 1,450; the Scottish average is 1,650. The percentage of income that is generated by the capitation fee is about 29 per cent., which becomes about 55 per cent. of future income. I do not see how doctors' incomes can do anything other than plummet. The Minister says that that the Government will pay for more doctors, for example, but doctors cannot obtain more patients in the Monynut valley, the Ettrick valley or in other rural practices. No matter how good, persuasive or outward-going a GP might be in an area such as my constituency, and no matter how he responds to the Government's blandishments to improve his performance, he will not get more skulls to

  301
  treat. That is an unfortunate phrase. I would prefer to say that the individual GP will be unable to find more patients on which to lavish his loving and tender primary care.
  How will the Minister's formula work in a constituency such as mine? How will it work in other rural areas? The hon. Gentleman suggested that the rural practice fund and inducement practice payments will bridge the gap, and it was on that issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked a fundamental question. The money put into the rural practice fund must increase, or the fund will diminish, there will be early retirements and women doctors will move on, as they are sometimes obliged to do because they get married and they move with their families. The net result must be a reduction in the number of doctors who are available. I have studied these matters as carefully as most, and I am expressing the views of GPs. The Minister shakes his head, and I trust that when he replies to the debate he will explain where I am wrong.
  The importance of the deprivation index should be underlined. A Scottish weighting is essential if we are to make sense of the provision for the central industrial belt. Another issue, perhaps at a more subsidiary level, is the fear that the GPASS software that has been developed in Scotland and is serving extremely well, will not measure up to the new requirements of information technology throughout the United Kingdom. It would be a retrograde step if GPASS were to be thrown out with the bathwater in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on that when he replies.
  11.14 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will forgive me if I do not follow his points because of the shortage of time.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that a large number of his hon. Friends wanted to speak in the debate, roared on by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)—the only two Opposition Members present at the time.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for responding to my question and providing a number of important statistics. Of course the quantity of services provided by GPs varies; there is no reason why it should not. The trend of Government thinking rightly aims at providing incentives to improved services. That is common ground in the House.
  There is much to be commended in the new contract—the increasing availability of doctors, the fact that it will be easier to change doctors, the check-ups for elderly patients, and so on. It must be right that there will be financial incentives to doctors to maximise childhood immunisation and screening for cancer of the cervix. It is also right that GPs working in deprived areas should receive a deprivation supplement, about whose calculation the hon. Member for Garscadden asked a number of questions.
  My first question is perhaps a minor one. The age targets are different in England and Wales and in Scotland. The age range quoted in the English contract is 25 to 64, but the age range in Scotland is 20 to 60, and I am not sure why. Can my hon. Friend explain that?
  302
  Secondly, doctors in my constituency have expressed their concern about the difficulties of meeting targets for cervical cytology in some areas, not because these areas are deprived but because of large ethnic minorities who might not be prepared, for religious, social and historical reasons, to come forward for such screening.
  Thirdly, the success of screening programmes such as those for cervical and breast cancer depend strongly on working from an adequate database. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the database is good enough?
  The Labour party is absurdly hypocritical to criticise the Government's record on women doctors. Certainly, many of them want to work part-time, but there are 60 per cent. more women doctors in Scotland now than there were under the last Labour Government.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. William McKelvey: We and the people of Scotland revere most doctors as caring and sympathetic people who are motivated not by profit but by job satisfaction. The Secretary of State for Health thinks that they are motivated by profit; or perhaps he thinks that they are as thick as he believes the rest of the Scots are.
  As eight out of 10 GPs have rejected the new contract, it must be fundamentally wrong, despite assurances to the contrary from the Minister this evening.
  The Minister has already agreed that the issue of cervical cytology is difficult for the Government to explain. My information is that GPs are paid, per item of service, for cervical smears done once every five years on women between the ages of 36 and 60. They receive no payment for most of the smears that are done now. Even with active screening campaigns, few practices in inner cities and in areas such as Kilmarnock, in which there are no ethnic minorities, ever achieve a take-up rate of more than 50 per cent.
  The proposed changes rely on target figures being reached, and if less than 50 per cent. of the target figure is reached, no payment will be made, making it completely impractical for many practices to do any smears. That is the great danger that we want to point out on behalf of the GPs who write to us.
  Again, that will affect the poorer areas, not the ethnic minority areas, where the uptake rate is always much lower, not because the women form an ethnic minority but because many of them do not have time for a smear because they have so much trouble worrying about how they will meet the next poll tax bill and look after their children with no increase in the family allowance.
  The low uptake rate is not just a Scottish phenomenon: it is the same in poorer English areas. For example, a recently published survey by Wendy Savage, consultant gynaecologist at the London hospital, showed that only one in 10 women surveyed in the Tower Hamlets area of London fully understood that the purpose of the smear test was to identify pre-cancerous cell changes for the purpose of eliminating them. Worse still, seven out of 10 women believed that the smear test would detect fully developed cancer and did not present themselves for testing because they believed that it would only confirm their worst fears, not save their lives. That situation is mirrored in the poorer areas of Scotland.
  The imposition of such targets will not only not tackle the scandal of more than 2,000 completely preventable

  303
  deaths from cervical cancer every year in the United Kingdom, but is likely to lead to an increase, and that is something that the Minister will have on his conscience. Scotland, with its many poor areas, is likely to bear a disproportionately high percentage of the 2,000 deaths. Since figures are not readily available, I hope that the Minister will collect them to show whether Scotland is affected disproportionately.
  The situation will be made worse. A GP is meant to achieve 60 per cent. of a given target in order to receive payment. Does the Minister have any idea how difficult that will be to achieve in an area which could not possibly be described as poor or ill-informed, let alone the areas that have previously been described as poverty-stricken?
  In one part of my constituency, Darvel, not a poor area, where local GPs decided on a highly intensive campaign to persuade 173 women to have a cervical smear test, despite a real blitz, only 110 attended for testing. If I am not mistaken, that is the bare minimum of 60 per cent. required before payment is made, and that is in an area of many well-informed—dare I say, middle-class—people.
  I hope that that example amply shows that targets will not mean great preventive health care, but less and less, particularly in areas of medicine in which the risk of death should have been eliminated long ago.
  There are areas that might benefit from the Minister's plans, but they will be the well-informed, middle-class areas and I am really concerned about the extremely poor people who are least likely to be served by such an ideology.
  11.23 pm
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend the Minister should consider the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on whether the cytology figures can be achieved. That is an important point which requires study.
  The Opposition are clearly in a difficulty tonight. First, they have to admit that Scotland has an infinitely better Health Service, and an infinitely better share of medical expenditure per capita, than in England. They cannot tell us that in England there are not deprived areas, and so on.
  What is the justification for our having such an enormous benefit that others do not have. Why are the Opposition and the medical profession so ambitiously resistant to any improvement for patients in Scotland and in the Health Service? The variety of services available, whether in rural practice, hospitals or urban practice is vast. What we want to see is encouragement so that the patient is given a better service everywhere. I find it profoundly depressing that the medical profession has consistently set its face against the possibility of improvement. I fear that there may be times when its members feel that the good of the patients is not as important as that of the doctors.
  As we move towards spending money more effectively and improving medical services, I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should object to our proposals to try to restrict the amount spent on drugs. When did they suddenly become the promoters of the international drug companies that are ripping off patients—for that, effectively, is what they are doing? When did the Opposition suddenly decide that they wanted such
  304
  companies to make bigger profits at the expense of patients? I should have expected them to say, "Hurrah for the contract: thank goodness, the patients will benefit and the international drug companies will not."
  That is just one of the hypocrisies of the Opposition. The Minister has proposed a contract that would give vast benefits to patients. We in Scotland should be far more concerned about them than about those who ought to be proud to serve them—those who have taken the Hippocratic oath, and should abide by it.
  11.26 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) should. I think, have the modesty to read some of the articles that define the problems of the Scottish health service. I recommend the article in volume 299 of the British Medical Journal of 7 October this year, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It was written by Vera Carstairs and Russell Morris, and based on research funded by the chief scientist of the Scottish Home and Health Department.
  If that does not convince the hon. and learned Gentleman of the need for improvement in the Health Service in Scotland, perhaps he would like to read the report by the alternative Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and to note the references made in it to Glenn and Hulbert. He can have it for the reduced rate of £1 per copy; I think that he will find it useful bedtime reading.
  Many GPs and others interested in the Health Service will find it difficult to believe the Minister's assertion that GPs work only 38 hours per week. I find it amazing that he can say such a thing as though there were no possibility of contradiction: indeed, he himself was contradicting all the evidence from GPs. I understand that they work an average of 73 hours per week, of which 30 are spent providing general medical services; in addition, they are on call and have other health-related responsibilities.
  Let me deal next with the vexed question of list sizes, and the role of women GPs—as a female Member of Parliament from Scotland, I should like to say something about how the legislation is likely to affect them. The new predictions for list sizes show a move away from allowances. Practices have always been attracted by the idea of employing a woman GP as a partner on a 20-hour-per-week basis, because she will put various allowances into the kitty. Generally, though not always, those women have been involved in obstetric, gynaecological and antenatal practice, and have played a fundamental role. As a result of the contract, they seem to be faced with alternatives: increasing their hours of work to 26 per week or taking on a new contract. Both will have deleterious effects on their family life. Women GPs often work only 20 hours a week because of their family commitments, but they bring that particular facility to the practice.
  The Minister was right to refer to the large increase in the number of women GPs working in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We welcome that increase, but I must point out to him and to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that the new contract could reverse a trend that is attracting women GPs into general practice. The Government argue strongly in favour of people being given a choice, but they could restrict their choice because many patients wish to have a woman doctor.
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)).
  The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 212.

  Division No. 409]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Anderson, Donald

  Haynes, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Henderson, Doug

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Hinchliffe, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Barron, Kevin

  Home Robertson, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bell, Stuart

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hoyle, Doug

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

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Illsley, Eric

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Buckley, George J.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Caborn, Richard

  Lamond, James

  Callaghan, Jim

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Leighton, Ron

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Litherland, Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Livsey, Richard

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clay, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Clelland, David

  McAllion, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Coleman, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  McFall, John

  Corbett, Robin

  McKelvey, William

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McLeish, Henry

  Cousins, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Madden, Max

  Cryer, Bob

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cummings, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Darling, Alistair

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Martlew, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Dewar, Donald

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Douglas, Dick

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Eadie, Alexander

  Morley, Elliot

  Eastham, Ken

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Murphy, Paul

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Mellist, Dave

  Fatchett, Derek

  O'Brien, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

  Parry, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Randall, Stuart

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Redmond, Martin

  Gould, Bryan

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Richardson, Jo

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Robertson, George

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rogers, Allan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  306

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wall, Pat

  Salmond, Alex

  Wallace, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Short, Clare

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Soley, Clive

  Wilson, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Winnick, David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Stott, Roger

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Strang, Gavin

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Allan McKay and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Turner, Dennis

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Alexander, Richard

  Evennett, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Amos, Alan

  Favell, Tony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Ashby, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Atkins, Robert

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Forth, Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bendall, Vivian

  Franks, Cecil

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Freeman, Roger

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gardiner, George

  Boswell, Tim

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Graham

  Gregory, Conal

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Butler, Chris

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

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

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Chope, Christopher

  Knapman, Roger

  Churchill, Mr

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knowles, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knox, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lang, Ian

  Colvin, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Conway, Derek

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lightbown, David

  Couchman, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Cran, James

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lord, Michael

  Curry, David

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dicks, Terry

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Maclean, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dunn, Bob

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Durant, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mans, Keith

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  307

  Mates, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Shelton, Sir William

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Mills, Iain

  Shersby, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sims, Roger

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Speller, Tony

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Squire, Robin

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Neubert, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Norris, Steve

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Stokes, Sir John

  Page, Richard

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Paice, James

  Sumberg, David

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Summerson, Hugo

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Price, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Tredinnick, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Trotter, Neville

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waller, Gary

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Ward, John

  Rost, Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wheeler, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  308

  Wilshire, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Timothy

  Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Yeo, Tim

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 26 October, I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales saying that he would place in the Library copies of undertakings for the purpose of section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act 1989 and relaxations granted under regulations 4(1)(c) and 4(2) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. Yesterday I was promised that that information would be in the Library today. It still is not there. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can obtain it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The matter has nothing to do with the business that we are about to consider. Indeed, it has nothing to do with the Chair. I hope that it has been noted by the Department concerned.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) say that the Government were using the opportunity of Prorogation day to release certain information, without us knowing. The Government said that they had not got the information to the printers on time. Another planted question was raised. It all shows that the Government are now a total shambles—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. We must proceed with the business of the House.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  11.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8975/89 relating to bovine somatotropin; and supports the Government's policy that the basis for authorising such products must be a thorough, scientific appraisal to confirm their safety.
  I shall begin by outlining the Community proposal which we are discussing tonight. It deals with the synthetic hormone, bovine somatotropin—which I will abbreviate to BST, to avoid future risk—which can increase the milk yield of dairy cows. It would allow trials to continue at national level and objective scientific evaluation of the data obtained, both by independent experts in member states and by a parallel expert committee of the European Community.
  The Commission maintains that the proposal does not bring into question the current system of evaluation. First, it would require member states not to authorise the commercial use of BST before 1991. Secondly, it would require the Commission to report in more detail to the Council, with proposals if necessary, by 1 October next year. Frankly, we do not know what proposals the Commission has in mind, and we suspect that it does not either.
  The present proposal has been put forward by the Commission under article 43 of the treaty. It has been referred to the Economic and Social Council and to the European Parliament for opinion. The ECOSOC's report is awaited. The Parliament will not take this proposal before December, if then, and the Council will thereupon act upon a qualified majority but may be able to give a formal endorsement following discussions at the level of COREPER.
  Bovine somatotropin is a single chain polypeptide—amino acids which are building blocks for protein—produced by the pituitary gland in all cows. It is both a protein and a hormone. In lactating cows the normal action of BST is to divert more of the animal's food intake to milk production.
  The same effect occurs with the administration of synthetic BST, which can now be manufactured by the same genetic engineering processes which have made it possible to produce commercial quantities of insulin, of AIDS-free blood factor 8, arid of interferon, which is a valuable drug against certain forms of cancer.
  Because it is a protein, BST is broken down by digestive mechanisms, and it must be administered by injection. Both chemically and biologically, BST is very different from the growth-promoting hormones banned under European Community and United Kingdom legislation. It has no hormonal action in man. All studies have failed to demonstrate such action in man. Some work was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s to discover whether BST would be effective in overcoming dwarfism in humans. It failed.
  As for the framework for approval in the United Kingdom, synthetic BST falls within the legal definition of a medicinal product. It is therefore subject to the controls set down in the Medicines Act 1968. The Act exists to protect public and animal health by ensuring that no product may be marketed in the United Kingdom until all
  310
  data relating to its safety, quality and efficacy—the trinity upon which the scientific advice depends—have been thoroughly scrutinised by qualified scientists and found to be satisfactory. Only when all the data have been evaluated, and the company has provided full and satisfactory answers to any questions which arise during the scrutiny, can a licence be issued.
  Although quality and human safety data can be worked up in a laboratory, it is often not possible for companies to provide data on efficacy and animal safety without conducting field trials, which must be authorised under the Medicines Act 1968. This authority, known as an animal test certificate, is issued only when the quality and human safety data permit scientists to draw the firm conclusion that trials may be conducted safely. This conclusion may be drawn for BST, and field trials are currently being undertaken in the United Kingdom and a number of other countries in Europe, including France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, and in the United States.
  In the United Kingdom, BST products are currently undergoing trials and assessment. The trials have been running for about four years. A maximum of just over 1,000 cows on up to 10 sites have been involved, although far fewer are normally involved at any one time. For example, on 8 November, 56 cows on four sites were being treated with manufactured BST. The milk from the trials is sold in the normal way through the Milk Marketing Board, which pools it with other milk. On 8 November, which was a typical day, it accounted for less than a hundredth of 1 per cent. of total milk supply.
  While the scientific standards to be applied are increasingly governed by Community rules—assessment falls under directive 81/851, for example—responsibility for licensing decisions rests with the national licensing authority, in this case Agriculture Ministers.
  Why has the Commission made this proposal? Its answer, to judge by its accompanying report to the Council and Parliament, is that time is needed to look at the other aspects of BST use which are not currently being considered as part of the licensing process. The Commission wants to look at the social and economic implications of widespread BST use, should a product licence be issued. It wants to examine the impact on the structure of the dairy industry and the wider implications for the rural economy. It also wants to look at the market impact, if there were to be a reaction by consumers against the use of synthetic BST in cows producing the milk they drink.
  These are important questions, even if they are separate from the safety, quality and efficacy criteria in the licensing process. Some argue that they should form the basis of a so-called fourth criterion in that process. That implies a similar, scientific assessment against agreed objective standards. As far as I know, however, no such further test has successfully been formulated.
  The social and economic concerns relate essentially to the impact of BST on the structure of the dairy industry and farming generally. The consequences of licensing BST could be widespread, as the Commission has noted in forwarding this proposal. Increases in milk yields and declines in dairy cow and calf numbers could trigger adjustments across the industry. Much depends on the assumptions made—for example, about how cost-effective BST would be and the extent of its uptake by milk producers.

  311
  Depending on those assumptions, it could be further argued that there would be a differential effect on larger and smaller dairy farmers. Hon. Members will know that small farmers are one of the current preoccupations of Brussels. If BST were nevertheless assumed to be attractive to those who produce and market milk, it might also be maintained that its availability in some parts of the Community and not others would confer unfair advantages on farmers in areas where it is available.
  To put all this in perspective, however, we should note how matters have already developed in the dairy industry, without any help from BST. In the United Kingdom, milk yield per cow increased by 27 per cent. from 1970 to 1988, and by 2 per cent. after 1984, when quotas were introduced.
  There are understandable concerns which go back long before the issue of BST. We have to recognise that there are very few firm facts on which to base calculations and projections. They quickly give way to an essentially subjective forecasting exercise. In the process, it is not easy to isolate the impact of any one factor, such as BST, from all the others, such as breeding developments and improved feeding techniques, which contribute far more to developments in the dairy sector.
  The Government take the view that objective scientific evaluation is the only reliable basis for taking action in the veterinary medicines sector. Some questions which fall outside the objective licensing process are legitimate, but answers to them should be found in the political arena and within the scope of policies relating to agricultural production and marketing.
  The second group of concerns are those expressed by consumers, and they clearly deserve the closest possible consideration. The licensing process, which I have outlined, already addresses many of those concerns, but there is a broader issue here to be faced by those developing and using high technology in consumer-sensitive areas, such as food production. It is for them to accept responsibility for informing and advising their intended customers. In establishing consumer safety, the Government are directly and intimately involved. The standards applied within our licensing system are rigorous in the extreme, as I shall show.
  When applications for authority to conduct trials into BST were considered, the Veterinary Products Committee looked carefully at the data concerning consumer safety and at the possibility that synthetic BST might affect the milk we drink. Milk is not a standard product. It contains many different substances and natural hormones, including BST, most of them in minute, but variable, quantities. The evidence examined by the Veterinary Products Committee showed that use of manufactured BST could lead in some circumstances to an increase in the amount of those substances that was present in milk, although the increases were very small and the amount of the substances remained within the normal range of variability. The substances concerned are milk fat, biotin, which is an essential vitamin, IGF1, which is a natural hormone involved in milk production, and BST itself.
  The Committee considered that field trials involving the small number of animals I have already mentioned would pose no risk to consumers. Milk from the trials was compositionally and nutritionally within the normal range
  312
  of variability. However, because some members of the committee have retired and others have been appointed since that conclusion was reached, I recently asked the committee to review the evidence afresh. It came unanimously to the same conclusion, and had it not been satisfied on that point, the field trials would not have been authorised and allowed to continue.
  Now that the Committee is looking at applications to issue product licences for two BST products, it is considering the implications should BST become widespread. Milk from treated cows might then, potentially, provide half or more of the total supply. In line with that cautious approach, the VPC has sought advice from the Department of Health on the nutritional and health implications of such a development, and its advice is expected soon. With or without the present Commission proposal, there will be no licensing of BST until all objective concerns about consumer safety have been resolved. We are being just as exhaustive in evaluating any possible animal welfare problems.
  Companies must know that, if a product is not safe, they will not be allowed to market it. Conversely, they should know that if a product is safe, they will be allowed to market it and to see whether it meets acceptance in the marketplace. Without such an assurance, the industry will cease to invest in the development of new products and it will certainly hesitate before making investments in the European Community. The Government believe firmly in the principle of taking licensing decisions on scientific evidence related to safety, quality and efficacy.
  The incentive or disincentive effects of decisions in these matters are not easily confined to a single area of research. We have to bear in mind the potential effects, especially in other parts of the human and veterinary medicines industry, which is both a provider of new medicines and a significant employer. The wider effects also extend to international trade. Unilateral action taken on disputed scientific grounds or mere political expediency can, as experience with the beef hormone problem has shown, jeopardise progress towards better trading relations in the agricultural sector.
  The scientific discipline of the licensing system is adapted to meet the objective concerns that are expressed about products such as BST. I have acknowledged that there are wider issues and concerns that are not—and cannot be—resolved in that way, but which deserve study. The Commission plans to follow this up and we shall take a close interest in its findings. The decisions to be taken, however, must be based firmly on the facts. I therefore commend the motion to the House.
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: On 28 November last year I tabled an early day motion calling on the Government to impose a ban on the non-therapeutic use of BST. It was supported by 117 members, mainly but not exclusively, Labour Members. On 29 November the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) tabled a similar motion calling for a ban on the use of BST in the United Kingdom which was supported by 66 Members, mainly, but not exclusively, Conservatives. That cross-party expression of opinion in the House reflects widespread public concern about and opposition to the use of BST in Britain's dairy herds.

  313
  In contributing to this latest chapter of the debate on BST I shall mention one incident in the debate's history which helps to put the Government's position in perspective. The incident was reported in the Farmers' Weekly on 15 July 1988 under the banner headline, "Gummer in Big BST Row". it took place when the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  This evening the Minister had made great play of the fact that he and his Department will be guided, if not bound, by scientific evidence. Before the scientific evidence on which the case for BST has been based had even been collected, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal went on television to say:
  "There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of any kind saying that BST is in any sense dangerous."
  Mr. Elliot Morley: The right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Synod.
  Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend has said, the right hon. Gentleman may be a member of the Synod of the Church of England, but in this outburst he was implicitly laying claim to the prophetic powers of Isaiah. The right hon. Gentleman's big BST row was a classic example of speaking out of turn. His comments were described as intolerable by an outraged member of the Veterinary Products Committee, the very organisation charged with deciding the issues upon which the Minister had so definitively commented. Were the VPC a court of law—it has a quasi-judicial role in product licensing—the right hon. Member would have been in contempt of court by now for speaking on a matter that was sub judice and might, even now, have delighted us all by thinking holy thoughts in gaol.
  However, both the right hon. Member and BST are still before us and the VPC is still conducting its deliberations. The same scientist who was outraged by the Minister's comments last year repeated in an article in The Guardian on 6 October this year:
  "BST … is a potential health risk to humans and its use should not he allowed."
  The same scientist who was appointed by the Government and was a distinguished member of the VPC, continued:
  "Assurances from Ministers that BST … is safe to drink in milk cannot be justified. The trials prove nothing about its potential dangers to human health and are now ethically questionable.
  The risk people face in drinking small amounts of BST-milk over a short period of time (during the experiments) is no measure of the risk faced by the whole population drinking nothing but BST-milk once it were approved".
  We are still awaiting the final adjudication from the VPC on whether BST meets the trilogy to which the Minister referred and is safe, efficacious and pure. We do know, however, despite the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act, that the committee has already, on several occasions, refused to grant the product licence.
  Mr. Curry: I wish to make it clear that members of that committee do not sign the Official Secrets Act but are bound by certain rules of confidentiality which stem from the Medicines Act 1968. The scientist to whom the hon. Gentleman constantly referred voted for the continuation of these trials. It was a unanimous decision.
  Mr. Davies: I am glad that the Minister is so well briefed he knows the name of the scientist to whom I refer. Perhaps he will give us a guarantee that the scientist, whose
  314
  term of office expires this December, will not be sacked for breaking the conditions imposed on him under the Medicines Act. Will the Minister guarantee that scientists who have made public statements on the safety of BST will not be sacked?
  Mr. Curry: No scientist is sacked if he acts within the law. The only rules of confidentiality that are imposed are those that relate to the Medicines Act. There is no question of the Official Secrets Act being used. Where we consider membership, we shall do so on the merits and not on any extraneous factor.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister has started to dig himself a deep hole. In the early part of his speech, he was making it clear that the European Community would have to consider other factors. I am satisfied that when the EC comes to make a decision on BST, it will refuse it—for reasons of convienience and in the light of all the analysis of the welfare arguments and the socio-economic arguments to which the Minister alluded—regardless of whether BST meets the trilogy of conditions—safety, efficacy and quality. The Minister will then have to explain to the various chemical companies how he is taking decisions almost on an ad hoc basis when the products have been submitted to the licensing system and approved. That is the problem that the Minister has created for himself, and which he has to resolve if he is to maintain credibility.
  We already know that distinguished members of the VPC have expressed their grave concerns about the safety and efficacy of the product. We also have the benefit of knowing the opinion of the Council of Ministers. When it discussed the issue at length in June of this year, the Minister's predecessor was in the lonely position which has become so familiar to British Conservatives when meeting our European partners. He was alone in speaking against the proposal to refuse a licence to BST. All the other 11 Ministers agreed that the British Government's view was the wrong one.
  The opposition to the use of BST shown by the Council of Ministers is shared by consumers and farmers. The National Farmers Union has made crystal clear its view on this issue. At its annual meeting in February, the depth of grassroots feeling against BST forced the union to abandon its policy of fence sitting and take a strong line against BST. The majority view among farmers has become the official view of the NFU. That view is shared by the Farmers Union of Wales, the Scottish union, and the Women's Farming Union. Representing the consumer-producer nexus, the Milk Marketing Board opposed the use of BST. Several large retail outlets, including Tesco, Marks and Spencer and the Co-op have all stated that they will not stock BST-produced milk.
  One solution to the vexed question of consumer attitudes to BST has been advanced by the president of the Dairy Trade Federation, Mr. Andrew Dare. Speaking shortly after his appointment in June of this year, he proposed:
  "Producers who decide to use this technology must be prepared to segregate their milk and label it accordingly. The consumer will then have the choice of whether to buy it or not."
  Mr. Dare is managing director of St. Ivel. He will know as well as any one in the dairy industry that his suggestion is impracticable and would preclude the commercial use of BST. I dare say that that is his intention.

  315
  Both producers and retailers know that much of the esteem in which milk and other dairy products are held comes from their justified reputation for being fresh, pure, natural and unadulterated. They realise the enormous damage that would be done to that reputation, and their livelihoods, if BST were authorised. With authorisation, but without labelling, all milk would be under the cloud of "BST-produced".
  Last week, in one of his many TV interviews on the subject of lead contamination in milk, the Minister said:
  "I am committed to safety first, and therefore I have taken these very important measures even before we have any evidence, and if I turn out to have over-reacted that seems to me the way the public would like it".
  It is a pity that the Minister does not apply that principle more consistently. Producers, manufacturers, retailers, consumers, scientists and welfarists are all agreed that too much is at stake. We are not asking the Minister to overreact but to demonstrate his commitment to safety first.
  In countering the preponderant view against its product, the pro-BST lobby has put out highly tendentious propaganda on consumer opinion surveys undertaken on its behalf by reputable market research organisations. One good example was the claim by one of the companies involved in secret trials of BST that because a large majority of the sample had not heard of the hormone, that suggested a lack of consumer concern. What is did not reveal was the attitude of those people who had heard of BST. To claim that because a group of people are ignorant of an issue means that they would be unconcerned if they had heard of it is patently dishonest. I suggest that it does more harm than good to the case for BST.
  Mendacious though that claim may be, it is small beer compared with a claim by one representative of the same company. The European marketing manager of Monsanto, Mr. Robert Deakin, speaking at a conference on genetic engineering, referred to those of us who object to the use of BST as "gastronomic terrorists". To my knowledge, that adds a new term to the salesman's lexicon. However, to judge by BST's progress, it has not been notably successful as a popularising catchphrase.
  We have seen that, over-hyped Ministers and drug companies apart, the consensus on BST is against its use. I am against the motion not only because I share that majority view but because I am also of the opinion that there must be some consideration of the likely impact of new, sometimes ethically questionable, developments in veterinary science before we give them the green light.
  It might help the Minister to know that Lord Plumb, former president of both the NFU and the European Parliament, said in a recent speech to the British Veterinary Association that the debate has moved on from whether there should be a fourth criterion, to the position where it would be "part and parcel" of future licensing. Therefore, he said, referring to the veterinary profession:
  "The profession must now work to ensure that the so-called 'fourth hurdle' is as close to scientific evidence as possible".
  That is the question to which the Minister should address himself tonight.
  The present procedure results in the future of drugs such as BST being determined on political grounds, not on the scientific grounds that the Minister argued. If the
  316
  Minister doubts that, he is at odds with his predecessor who was able to agree with his EC counterparts at the June Council meeting that
  "the decision on the future use of BST was a political issue".
  That was reported in the Agra Europe report on 23 June.
  Like it or not, that is the position. It seems that the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did like it, for in spite of his later protestations to the contrary, on a visit to a Scottish research foundation in March of this year, he said:
  "If an application for a BST licence lands on my desk it will have to go through the most rigorous assessment, including evidence of need, by both the appropriate scientific committee and the European Community".
  That is a far cry from the case that the Minister made tonight, when he said that BST must merely meet the three scientific criteria. His predecessor acknowledged that there had to be an assessment of need before he would grant a product licence. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what has changed—apart from the incumbent in office—between the decision of his predecessor in March, demanding, requiring and insisting, using his authority as Minister, that there would be an assessment of need, and the present Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of the Government's view that there must be merely the meeting of those three scientific criteria.
  If the Minister is now taking a different view, that is between him and this right hon. Friend; but the reality is that this decision is going to be a political one. We must ensure that all concerned know the basis on which it is taken so as to remove as much as possible the uncertainty facing those who develop new veterinary products.
  The Government claim that these issues should be decided only on the basis of assessment by scientific criteria because, among other things, that allows the pharmaceutical companies to know where they stand. This position is fundamentally contradicted by paragraph 11 of the MAFF explanatory memorandum on the EC legislation that is before us, which states:
  "In the United Kingdom's view the decision whether to authorise BST or not should be taken on the established criteria. The other non-scientific issues including economic implications should be addressed outside the licensing system".
  Is it now the Minister's position that there must be an assessment on the basis of scientific criteria, that a decision will then be taken to license the product but that there will be a further evaluation—presumably as part of a political debate—to determine whether that product can be sold, even though it has been granted a product licence? We must draw that conclusion from the Minister's remarks and from his Department's explanation of the EC document.
  What on earth does it mean? It appears to mean that licensing should take place under existing procedures, but that another evaluative mechanism should be established whereby it is decided on political grounds whether, if a product has been granted a licence, the manufacturers should be permitted to sell it.
  Companies that have been involved in producing BST, and those investing in other artificial growth promoters and hormones, will not take kindly to that prescription, for it is a recipe for the political uncertainty which the Minister claims he wishes to avoid. Indeed, what could inject more uncertainty into the minds of the corporate strategists and research scientists?

  317
  If the Government concede that matters other than the purely scientific are to he considered—that is the implication of paragraph 11—surely it is best to incorporate those into the licensing procedures, rather than make the manufacturers jump through two hoops instead of the existing one?
  But do the Government concede that non-scientific criteria should be considered? The Minister's predecessor's comments showed that, when he was at MAFF, they did. However, paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum says:
  "The current procedure offers to companies the assurance that the considerable investment they make to develop new products will not be wasted as a result of Government action except on firm scientific grounds."
  If we take paragraph 11 at face value—the one that says that non-scientific issues should be addressed, but outside the licensing system—nothing could be further from the truth.
  Are we to believe paragraph 10 or paragraph 11? Because the Government should come clean and minimise the uncertainty facing pharmaceutical innovation, we think that the socio-economic and environmental criteria should be incorporated into the licensing system. We support the fourth criterion, because we appreciate that it is already a factor in the European deliberations and because we want the procedure to be above board and transparent.
  We support the fourth criterion because it is necessary to evaluate the wider effects of new products. In the words of the MAFF explanatory memorandum:
  "The authorisation of BST and other comparable products for use in livestock could have a significant effect on productivity with potentially far-reaching implications for production techniques and socio-economic structures in agriculture."
  The Minister, in his memorandum, recognises that, yet he refuses to accept the logic of the explanation which his Department has offered.
  Given that premise—and I entirely agree with it—it would be irresponsible and negligent in view of the responsibilities that MAFF has to those already in dairying if the socio-economic and environmental impacts of permitting the use of biotechnology were not assessed. Since those effects have to be considered, it would be better that they were examined under a fourth criterion as part of the licensing system, rather than in an ad hoc manner after a licence has been granted.
  What could be more undermining of the confidence of the pharmaceutical research establishment than the Government choosing this sort of ad hockery rather than a clearly enunciated and comprehensible fourth criterion? To quote the director of the Commission division responsible for free trade after 1992:
  "It should be possible for firms to know in advance what regulatory framework a new product will be subjected to. The Community should play the game according to a strict and fixed set of rules; it's a little hard on the manufacturer if the goal posts are moved while the game is in progress".
  The European Parliament has called for an examination of BST on the grounds of safety, quality and efficacy. It called on the Commission to examine the consequences of the use of BST and consider inter alia the necessity for additional criteria such as social and economic factors. That is the view which the Opposition support and, therefore, we do not endorse the Government's view on the document.
  12.20 am
  Mr. John Greenway: I do not wish to detain the House at this late hour. My hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) have espoused most of the arguments, but two issues need to be addressed: first, the principle of scientific advice and the priority that that should play in the licensing system; and, secondly, the public reaction to the use of certain medicinal and therapeutic products. The Government are right to pursue the principle that the first priority must be to make scientific advice paramount. Subjective factors should not cloud scientific facts when it comes to licensing.
  There is a problem with the fourth criterion, and I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said about that. I understand that many farming elements are unhappy about parts of the criterion, and that is something that we shall need to discuss long after this debate. There are dangers, however, in using socio-economic factors when assessing the efficacy of medicinal and therapeutic products. There are dangers especially when we are dealing with the emotive issue of hormones.
  There is a public aversion to some scientific applications in the food chain, especially those involving hormones. Milk production is especially sensitive. The hon. Member for Caerphilly was right to draw attention to the benefits that accrue either to the farmer or the consumer, but that is not the primary issue. We have scientific advice, which has been updated in recent weeks, that the results of the trials and tests are safe. I am concerned about the public aversion and its impact on the consumption of milk and dairy products. As the Government have said, as long as a product is safe, it should be for the producer to decide. Such is the nature of the marketing of milk and dairy products, however, that while one producer may decide against the use of BST, another may opt in favour of it. It is difficult, nay impossible, for the customer to know whether any of the milk that he or she consumes could have been involved with BST.
  That may leave the customer with one option, and that is not to buy milk or dairy products. That could be disastrous for some farmers. It is a great pity that the BST issue has forced the Government to highlight their efforts—sensible, in my view—to resist EC moves to over-use socio-economic factors to overrule scientific advice on the licensing system for medicinal products. I hope that the trials that are taking place will end soon. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell the House of the time scale that is envisaged for the continuation of the trials. When they are completed I hope that most farmers will decide against the use of BST. If the priority of agriculture is to restore and retain the confidence of the consumer in the purity of the product, it must be responsive to the genuine concerns of the public, ill informed or misinformed though they sometimes are. The industry must avoid the unnecessary use of medicines and therapeutic applications that create uncertainty or alarm.
  It is inevitable that consumer watchdogs will delve into and exploit in whatever way they can the use of BST and hormones in the preparation of milk and dairy products, should some farmers decide to use them. The hon. Member for Caerphilly clearly said that the National Farmers Union has come out strongly against the use of BST, and if most farmers decide against its use, that will

  319
  vindicate the Government's position. There is a case for saying that we must support the principle that scientific advice and evidence should be given first, but that farmers must decide whether to use a product in their farming practices. If scientific advice says that something is safe, it is up to them to decide whether to use it.
  The vast majority of farmers will want nothing to do with BST. If consumers and retailers want clear evidence that BST has not been used in the preparation of the milk products bought in their shops, the milk marketing board and other organisations involved in the supply of milk will have to come to terms about that with their producers.
  I support what my hon. Friend said, with the caveat that we want the trials to end soon. The use of BST could fundamentally undermine the recovery of our milk and dairy industries.
  12.27 am
  Mr. Martyn JonesI support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for a fourth criterion as part of the licensing system for products such as BST. That criterion must be the ethical and environmental effect of such products.
  I shall go further and suggest that the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968 under which BST was tested are entirely inappropriate for a completely commercial product such as this, and ethical and social factors should be considered before animal test certificates are granted for a product which by no stretch of the imagination could be called a medicine. Such considerations should stand apart from those of safety, quality and efficacy. But in this case there are serious question marks over safety, too. For instance, we are told that the genetically engineered hormone is identical to naturally occurring BST, but to which one? At least four occur within the cow.
  What about the spare amino acids in the genetically engineered version? Some versions contain up to eight different amino acids along the chain of the genetically engineered version.
  Potentially the most worrying factor is this: what possible control does a producer have over the genetic variability of a fermenter containing billions of E. coli organisms—except the crude measurement of the efficiency of the hormone produced? It is entirely possible that spontaneous mutations may occur in the E. coli organisms used in a fementer, which may lead to the production of a version of BST which, though still biologically active, may be very different in structure and long-term effect. That question cannot be satisfactorily answered with the present state of technology.
  The other concern that must be considered is the animal's welfare. To say the least, it is somewhat hypocritical of the Minister to acquiesce with the EC in the pre-slaughter injection of papain, a practice which he claims is not inhumane, and yet not act on BST injections in cattle.
  We have created by artificial selection cattle which have naturally high levels of BST by breeding for milk production, and now we are considering subjecting them to a massive increase in the levels of that hormone. That must mean an unnatural strain on the animal's physiology. Something must give, and I suspect that in the long term it will be the animal's health.
  320
  The documents that we are considering, by establishing a further evaluation period, and the Select Committee's report, tacitly recognise the yawning gap in the procedure for evaluating novel products created by genetic recombinant techniques, and the use of such products for purely commercial aims.
  When all the factors are properly taken into account, the use of BST will be prohibited and any future products should have their ethical and social effects considered before even trials are permitted.
  12.30 am
  Mr. Michael Stern: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) in his doubts about the use of the procedure laid down in the Medicines Act 1968 in evaluating BST. It is generally accepted that the Government have acted with complete responsibility in applying the stringent criteria of that Act to the product. I doubt whether any European nation would be able to show a better record than the Government in the full and proper evaluation of BST.
  My concern is not whether the product will be fully evaluated—I share the Minister's doubts about whether a fourth criterion is necessary in determining whether the product should be used—my doubt is in a rather more specific area. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that consumers had been ill-informed or misinformed on the nature of the product. Neither description is entirely accurate. The problem is that consumers have not been informed at all.
  I represent a constituency of milk consumers. To the best of my knowledge, I do not represent one milk producer. But when a rumour developed in my constituency that one of 10 sites in which BST was being tested was close to Bristol and that the milk was being sold in Bristol, it was impossible to obtain a confirmation or denial.
  If a product is being tested under the stringent provisions of the Medicines Act, we owe it to the consumers of that product to tell them that either there is no possibility of the product entering the milk they buy, or there is such a possibility.
  I accept my hon. Friend the Minister's assurance that the possibility is slight, but however slight it is, we add nothing to the product's credibility by being seen to hide whether that possibility exists.
  Despite the EC document and the Minister's comment that testing in Britain has probably been more stringent than elsewhere, he has nevertheless done considerable damage to his case by acting in what might be called a paternalistic way and refusing to inform consumers whether they might have been subject to the test.
  12.34 am
  Mr. Richard Livsey: I do not know how many hon. Members have milked cows frequently, but I have milked hundreds. At the hour of the morning when we often finish our debates, many people are starting to milk their herds.
  We cannot ignore the background of Britain's dairy industry. The average yield of the 3 million dairy cows that we are considering is 5,500 litres per cow, and we are told that the application of BST will increase that yield by anything from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. A potential increase to over 6,000 litres per cow will leave farmers with

  321
  some difficult choices, given milk quotas: they must either go for increased yield and BST, or cut the number of cows that they possess. The implications of that are considerable, especially for small farmers. The implications of milk going over quota, and of increased milk production EEC-wide, are particularly serious, in view of the agony of the milk producers who have gone out of production over the past four or five years, and the 20 per cent. drop in United Kingdom milk production.
  The core of the argument, it seems to me, is whether BST will be granted a product licence under the three criteria advanced by the Minister tonight. Will he, indeed, take on board the fourth criterion of economic and socio-economic factors? These are difficult problems for him to wrestle with. In his opening speech, he appeared to discount that fourth criterion, but I think that he was unwise to do so.
  The Government's narrow view contrasts with the wider view of the European Community. The Commission's report to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament states:
  "the Community's approach is to be based on the fullest awareness of all the implications."
  Most member states are very hesitant about the authorisation of BST; by contrast, the United Kingdom is regarded as an easy option for a way into Europe for the pharmaceutical companies, as it is the only member state to have allowed BST to be collected and sold unmarked. Why is that the case?
  There is concern at the fact that existing techniques do not permit the ready identification of BST in dairy products, because the BST exists naturally in milk. That must give us cause for doubt. Research is currently under way at the university of Munich with the object of finding a method of identifying the hormone in milk in the first place. It is very serious that we cannot do that now, and label it appropriately. BST, if it is to be allowed at all, should not be allowed until such a method is found; otherwise there will be no opportunity for consumer choice. If the method is found, dairy products from BST-treated cattle should be labelled as such.
  Concern has also been expressed at the statement by the London Food Commission that artificial BST has one or more extra amino acids at one end of the molecule. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) went fully into the matter, so I shall not repeat the argument.
  Concern about animal welfare, consequent upon their regular injection, has to be taken into account. There are many questions the answers to which are unknown. What effect will BST have on reproductive performance, on the incidence of mastitis in cows and on calf growth? Will there be an increase in metabolic diseases as a result of BST injection? We do not know the answers to those questions. The Minister said that trials are still taking place. When they have been completed I hope he can give hon. Members answers to all those questions.
  As for the socio-economic factors, especially those that relate to small farmers, the Commission's report says that if one assumes that the Community's milk quota regime continues beyond 1992, the use of BST should be reflected in a reduction in the number of cows rather than in an increase in overall milk production. That is likely to be accompanied by a greater concentration of milk production in the hands of larger milk producers an greater pressure on the quota regime. The effect of BST on small dairy farmers is likely to be bad. That must be taken
  322
  into account, particularly in view of the importance of the family farm. Small dairy producers are often the backbone of production in poorer areas.
  Consumer groups have expressed grave concern about BST. They echo public mistrust over the use of such products. The European Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, said recently that quotas will continue beyond 1992. However, BST may result in the production of milk beyond the quotas. That would lead to a reduction in the price that producers can obtain for their milk. Quotas are here to stay. It has been reported today that most European Community countries are heading for quota surpluses. It is madness, therefore, to administer something that will increase milk production by between 10 and 20 per cent. when we are attempting to achieve a balance between production and consumption.
  The dairy industry as a whole, and small dairy farmers in particular, need BST like a hole in the head. It will lead to even greater surpluses and to retrenchment. Consumers are opposed to the administration of BST, straight down the line. Only the pharmaceutical companies will gain. Unless we take on board the fourth criterion, there will be no proper evaluation of the product.
  12.43 am
  Mr. Brian Wilson: My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) have made a formidable case against the Government's policies. I intend to step back a little and consider how this debate might be viewed by members of the public. I shall point to the absurdity of what is being discussed at this late hour—a proposal which comes not from the public at large but from a handful of pharmaceutical companies in order to deal with a problem that does not exist.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has referred to the fact that British agriculture is faced with many problems but that a shortage of milk is not one of them. Yet we are seriously discussing with a whole panoply of states surrounding us a highly dodgy product which the pharmaceutical companies have put before us. We are obliged to react to it and, presumably, to approve it. Whatever lip service is paid to the further tests that will take place and the great care that the Government will take, the Opposition do not think much of those assurances and believe that we are already well on the way to product licences being granted by a Government, and particularly a Ministry of Agriculture, that are in the pockets of vested interests.
  We are discussing the basis of food quality in Britain in which the consumer takes second, third or fourth place and in which the initiative lies with the vested interests. They state what they want and MAFF supinely follows. This time it is the pharmaceutical companies; at other times it is agribusiness or the food processing industry—all those huge interests pour money into the Conservative party coffers and on some occasions ask for something back.
  We are here tonight not because there is a shortage of milk in Britain or because anyone in the House seriously believes that the quality of production will be improved by BST. We are here tonight at the behest of Eli Lilly and Monsanto as they have developed a product for which

  323
  they want an outlet and which can be turned into very large profits but the legislative nod is needed from the House and possibly from the European Community.
  What would be the impact of BST on rural communities? We know that if it is broadly introduced the yield will be increased by 10 to 20 per cent. The Agra Europe briefing, which is an authoritative document, states:
  "The resulting increase in profitability would tend to increase the demand for and therefore the price of milk quota and provide a further incentive to the less efficient to give up production. The use of BST would therefore accelerate the trend to fewer dairy farms and larger units which has developed during the last two decades."
  If it is Government policy further to depopulate rural areas, to drive more family farms out of business, and in constituencies such as mine to say to dairy farmers, "There is now no place for you because we want to maximise the milk yield and maximise production in the fewest hands," the Minister should say that tonight. If that is not Government policy pressing ahead with the consideration of a product for which there is no consumer demand and no rational demand is totally incompatible with healthy rural communities with people working in manageable units which would be eroded by the extension of BST.
  We are debating an initiative from the pharmaceutical companies which the Government appear to be playing along with to a greater extent than other European countries. We see that in the labelling of the products. Why is BST coming on to the market by stealth? If the Government are completely satisfied that there is no risk or danger and that everything is entirely in order, why are there any reservations about saying up front to the consumers of milk that what they are getting contains an element of milk which has been produced with the aid of BST? If that is the Government's view, what is the objection to that?
  I believe that it is a fraud on consumers—one of many sponsored by MAFF—to produce in any quantity milk that contains any element of milk produced with BST without telling people precisely what they are getting. It is not good enough to say, "We, MAFF, who have been so wrong on so many other things over the past couple of years, say that there is no danger." According to the Minister, we are engaged on a testing programme to discover the implications of BST, but, at the same time, it is being pushed down the throats of British consumers without the common courtesy of telling them what they are getting, which is indefensible.
  There is no demand for increased milk production in Britain. We should be protecting the interests of rural communities and milk producers, but the Government are working at the behest of pharmaceutical companies. We are debating BST at 12.50 am because of the initiative of a couple of pharmaceutical companies, which is against the interests of consumers, against the interests of our future agriculture and against the wishes of rural communities in Scotland, many parts of England and, as we have heard, many parts of Wales.
  The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) tried to square a circle. He expressed doubts and engaged in a bit of hand wringing, but he supports the Government's proposals. If he continues to do so, many dairy producers in his constituency and in the constituencies of other hon.
  324
  Members will be in deep trouble. It was a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not oppose the expansion of BST as firmly as did other hon. Members.
  12.51 am
  Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) represents a constituency in what used to be called Ayrshire. He rightly spoke up clearly on behalf of dairy producers in his constituency and on behalf of consumers who are concerned about the possible commercial use of this product.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) covered many of the detailed arguments against the deployment of this product in the dairy industry in Britain. Under normal circumstances, one would be tempted to ask, "Who on earth supports the use of BST in Britain or anywhere else in Europe?" We have received the answer this evening—the Government and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). One must pay tribute to their courage, if not their judgment.
  Mr. John Greenway: I made no such statement, as the hon. Gentleman will discover when he reads Hansard. I am sorry that he was not listening more carefully. I said that it is unfortunate that the Government are having to face this issue in fighting for the principle of scientific advice being paramount.
  Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is doing a spot of back-pedalling. I shall read his speech, perhaps he should do so and I sincerely hope that milk producers in his constituency will read it.
  The hon. Gentleman repeated his key point—that scientific criteria should be paramount. He referred to the medicinal and therapeutic properties of BST. That was his crucial error. BST has no medicinal or therapeutic qualities; it is an artificial stimulant that makes cows produce 10 or 20 per cent. more milk. That is not medicinal or therapeutic but purely economic. The hon. Member should get that point straight.
  The hon. Member for Ryedale suggested that farmers will be free to use this product if they want to. Surely he must be living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that it will be so easy for farmers. If this product comes on to the market, the competitive dynamics of the marketplace will compel farmers to take advantage of it. It is important, therefore, that the House and the European Parliament effectively apply the safeguards that the people of Europe and Britain, and the industry, want.
  Apart from the hon. Member for Ryedale and the British Government, who wants BST to be brought into commercial use? It certainly is not the consumer—the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) made that point clear. It certainly is not the dairy industry, which would not want it because consumers do not want it. The industry certainly does not want a food scare such as has been experienced elsewhere in that industry. The agricultural industry certainly does not want BST. It was made abundantly clear to the House tonight that the National Farmers Unions in all parts of the United Kingdom opposes the approval of this product.
  Who is in favour of BST? Monsanto and Eli Lilly—not exactly the most objective bodies in this debate. They want

  325
  the House and the European Community to uphold their commercial right to develop a market for their product. This debate, if it is about nothing else, must be about the balance between a company's right to seek a commercial profit from its investment and the broader interests of the consumer and the agricultural and rural economy. That balance should be struck, but it cannot be done if we keep to the narrow scientific criteria about which the hon. Member for Ryedale talked. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly echoed the powerful case, which has been made by the Opposition, that a fourth criterion—the ethical, or socio-economic, criterion—should be met before such a product can be approved.
  One may ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North has asked, why on earth, when there is such an overproduction of milk, have Monsanto and Eli Lilly put such energy into the production of BST? Even without BST, higher yields are likely to make about 400,000 cows redundant in the European Community in the not-so-distant future. These companies are devoting all their expertise to developing a compound to produce even more milk, for which there is no market—a compound that is likely to create great uncertainty and worry in the market.
  Why could not those companies have devoted as much energy to producing a veterinary product to deal with the present problems? That is something that the industry and the community need. No, those companies have produced BST and they are hellbent on marketing it and making a profit out of it, regardless of the concerns of consumers, the disruption caused to the industry and a range of other vital considerations.
  I put it to the Minister that the narrow criteria of safety, quality and efficacy alone are just not enough. The European Commission is right to take account of the broader criterion of socio-economic factors before sanctioning the use of BST. A precedent was set in a similar industry when the European Community banned the use of hormone growth promoters for beef. We talked about this issue then. There was no evidence that growth promoters in beef had any detectable effect on human beings. On purely scientific grounds, there was no case for a ban, but it was imposed because consumers wanted one. Likewise, consumers want a ban imposed on BST. Just as Governments and the European Community paid heed to consumer concern about hormone growth promoters for beef, they should pay similar heed in this matter.
  Monsanto and Eli Lilly have no God-given right to market a product and to make a profit out of a product. They should be within the law. They should act within the constraints of public interest, of which Governments have a duty to take account. We are not talking about a veterinary product. BST has no beneficial therapeutic effects. On the contrary, I should have thought that a regular series of injections into cows has a detrimental effect on animal welfare. We are talking about a specific artificial stimulant which is purely for commercial purposes. That fourth criterion—of socio-economic or ethical considerations—must be adopted for the approval of products of this nature.
  We do not intend to divide the House on this issue, although I hope that the Minister has grasped the fact that there is widespread dissatisfaction with his laid-back approach to this case. I think that we can safely depend on our comrades, if we can call them that, in other European countries to out-vote the British Government once again,
  326
  and to ensure that common sense prevails and that the industry and consumers will be protected. We live in hope, however, that the Minister will take account of public opinion, even if nobody else in the Government will.
  1 am
  Mr. Curry: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
  It will be a major disappointment to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to know that the Government are perfectly happy to accept the Commission's proposal of a pause for reflection. Indeed, we have already said that. We are not isolated. The matter is perfectly simple. We believe that there is a clear distinction between the licensing process, which is to determine on scientific grounds whether a product is safe, and the political decision whether to accept those results.
  We have made it perfectly plain that we accept that there are legitimate concerns about the implications of this product, other than on grounds of safety. Its safety will be determined by the Veterinary Products Committee when it has completed its investigations. It faces many questions. Without any Commission intervention, we would not be able to license this product before at least this time next year. No delay is being imposed. These processes must be gone through exhaustively before we can grant a licence.
  We draw a clear distinction between the scientific process and whether, politically, we want to buy the product. That does not cause me the slightest embarrassment. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that the Government will be embarrassed. If the Commission makes a proposal, we have to cope with it, just as we had to cope with the proposal on beef hormones. If that is to be quoted as the glorious precedent, I invite the hon. Gentleman to conduct a brief tour of inspection of Europe and see the extent to which the proposal is being enforced and the extent to which hormones still appear in beef, greatly to the deception of EC consumers.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister understand that he is now saying that he will take a political, ad hoc decision based almost on a whim and the Government's prevailing political thought? Does he understand how worrying that will be to companies that have committed themselves to substantial investment and which need to know that there is an objective and systematic assessment of products that emerge from their research? Does he accept that our proposal of a fourth hurdle would institutionalise such an arrangement so that the companies involved would know the procedures with which they must comply? Without that, they will be subject to political decisions made on a whim.
  Mr. Curry: We are not deciding on a whim. The European Community exists, and the Commission is entitled to make a proposal. If it does that, we cannot simply walk out of the room and say that the whole thing is inconvenient. We have to deal with the proposal. That is not whim but political reality. The burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he will somehow introduce scientific criteria to measure something—was it social, economic or ethical considerations? It was not quite clear. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he can devise and incorporate a clear, sharp scientific criterion that will let companies know where they stand, his accusation that we

  327
  are performing intellectual gymnastics will pale into insignificance next to the extraordinary convolutions that he is going through.
  Mr. Ron Davies: I promise that this is my last intervention. The Minister has challenged me to produce a criterion. I challenge the Minister. If I produce one, will he implement it?
  Mr. Curry: Like everything the hon. Gentleman produces, I should wish to look at it with great care under a microscope. The reason for that is illustrated by his remarks today. He mentioned labelling, as did some of my hon. Friends, and we must be clear about that. It is a difficult issue because of the problems of the identification of BST. In addition, obligatory labelling would be difficult to enforce, in the same way as the beef hormone ban is difficult to enforce. European Community food law prevents a member state from introducing additional national labelling requirements without Community approval. We believe that the Commission's study could look usefully at the whole matter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) emphasised the importance of objective criteria and he also said that there is a genuine dilemma for producers. I agree that there is; nobody denies it. That is entirely the purpose of making a distinction between whether a product should be available purely on health and scientific grounds and whether it will be taken up on any other grounds. He asked when the trials will end. As I have just said, we shall be unlikely to be in a position to license before about 12 months from now because of that a number of questions remain to be asked.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) mentioned several detailed issues about the science of this. If he will permit me, I shall reply to him by letter because his points were extremely complicated. I recognise that he has more scientific background than many hon. Members who discuss this matter and I am willing to reply to him in writing. However, I must point out to him that the Farm Animal Welfare Council raised certain matters which have already been referred to the veterinary products committee as part of the criteria that it will use to assess the safety of this product.
  I was grateful for the praise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) for our record of full and proper evaluation. He said that consumers were not informed at all. We have certain constraints under the Medicines Act 1968, but we have never concealed the fact that milk from the trials goes into the normal supply of milk. I must make it clear to all hon. Members that the only country that does not permit that to happen is the Netherlands. All the other countries in which trials are taking place permit the milk to go unlabelled into the general milk supply. The reason for that is that we were twice advised by the veterinary products committee that that was safe, as the scientists mentioned by the Opposition also advised.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister does not realise that consumers worry about what is happening to food production, including our pork production. The only point on which I am certain is that more farmers will vote for us this time than ever before. half my milk farmers have already gone out of business
  328
  because of the quotas and the problems that they have caused. We shall have farmyard crack and the consumer will not know whether the product that he is buying contains it or not. Surely at this early stage we should be looking at how we can inform consumers whether they are buying milk that contains BST.
  Mr. Curry: I have already made it clear that, as part of the Commission's review, we are perfectly happy for that matter to be looked at. However, we have also made it clear that we should not have authorised even these minute trials to take place were we not convinced by means of an independent body that those trials were perfectly safe. We cannot take advice other than that presented to us by an impeccable body of scientists. I have here the list of the members of the Veterinary Products Committee.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: No, because I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not wish to forgo the pleasure of commenting on them.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) mentioned the social concerns of the small farmer, as I have. I suspect that my constituency is not dissimilar to his. I know what farmers believe on this matter and that is why we have said that we are looking at these other matters, but we do not want them to masquerade as part of the scientific process. We want them to be seen as a separate part of the process. The fourth criterion is for a political decision and I do not want politics masquerading as science because we have seen what has happened in various areas, from fisheries to beef hormones. The real fear for many farmers is that if this permits costs to be cut—there is a case for saying that—it will put pressure on the institutional milk price. I recognise that fear.
  There will be careful consideration of all aspects of bovine health, including mastitis. The progeny from treated cows are being assessed from the different lactations of a multi-lactational trial. Therefore, I can give an assurance that those matters are being carefully considered.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) gave me a fleeting reassurance that the Labour party has not been reformed as much as its public relations might indicate that it wanted to. He lifted every phrase straight from the conspirator's handbook. He talked of the highly dodgy product; we were told that we were paying lip service and were in the pockets of the vested interests. In fact, the phrases were lifted not merely from the conspirator's handbook, but from an elderly edition. He should ask the chairman of the VPC, Professor Armour, dean of the school of veterinary medicine at Glasgow university, whether he will subscribe to the description of himself and his team as simply stooges in the pay of the pharmaceutical industry.
  We are not forcing this product down the farmers' throats. Nobody is going to ride shotgun on the wagons to force farmers to use this product. We have decided that they should have the choice whether to use it. If they decide to use it, that is their affair. If they decide not to, that is equally their affair.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that the United Kingdom supports BST. That is not true. I shall not know whether to support it until the VPC has said whether it is a safe product and fulfils the criteria. If it does so and is given a clean bill of

  329
  health. I shall clearly support the right for it to be made available. If it is not given a clean bill of health I am equally categoric that it will not be made available because that is the whole purpose of a scientific assessment.
  It is not my job to tell Eli Lilly or Monsanto how to spend their money. If they decide to devote it to pharmaceutical research and them come to me and say that they have developed a product which they wish to have assessed, under the Medicines Act 1968 I must submit that product to an evaluation process. I cannot say, "I'm sorry, but the Act is not for you, today," or "We do not like the implications of what you are going to do. Go away."
  If I were to take such action and introduce into the assessment process a pseudo-scientific criterior masquerading as science, those companies would not come at all, but would take their business elsewhere which would be to the great detriment of everybody in the United Kingdom and the European Community.
  The hon. Member for East Lothian persists in his unwillingness to accept that there is good will among Conservative Members. We have products which we are obliged to assess on the grounds of certain objective criteria. That is the right way to go about this, and it has served us well in the past. The VPC has thrown out the majority of applications that it has assessed this year under these very criteria. Therefore, it is quite right that we should proceed in this way.
  In this rough old world in which we live, if the Commission comes forward with a proposal we must react to it. We want the Commission to make that assessment as sensibly and objectively as it can. If we then have to vote upon it, we must do so. If that results in decisions being taken on political grounds, and the Council of Ministers has a majority to make those decisions, that is what will happen. We have already seen it happen with the beef hormone proposal.
  We do not want to try to confuse the issue and say that we should move away completely from the principle of the objective assessment of these products. If we do that, we shall rapidly descend into an extremely confused approach to our treatment of future technology. We have not denied this in the past in the United Kingdom or turned our back on it. If we start to do so, we have little future as a country in which technology has a fair home. I do not think that any hon. Member would wish that to happen, which is why I ask the House to support the Government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8975/89 relating to bovine somatotropin; and supports the Government's policy that the basis for authorising such products must be a thorough, scientific appraisal to confirm their safety.

  Bovine Somatotropin

    PRIVILEGES
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Secretary Wakeham and Mr. Frank Dobson be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and that Sir Geoffrey Howe and Dr. John Cunningham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

  Vietnamese Boat People
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  1.14 am
  Mr. David Alton: At this time in the morning, I am grateful to the Minister for being here to answer the debate.
  It is a sad reflection that this brief Adjournment debate is the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss the implications of the shift in Government policy towards the repatriation of Vietnamese boat people. The announcement was made by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) during his brief tenure as Foreign Secretary. During his one Foreign Office Question Time appearance at the Dispatch Box, he signalled the Government's decision to abandon attempts to resettle the 56,718 Vietnamese people in Hong Kong. Instead, involuntary repatriation, compulsory repatriation, mandatory repatriation, or an orderly return programme are to be the cornerstone of our future approach.
  If words have any meaning at all, involuntary and mandatory mean forcible. If these are mere euphemisms and Foreign Office code, perhaps the Minister will use this debate to explain exactly what the Government have in mind.
  Certainly Mr. Lionel Bloch, Sir Robin Day, Lords Havers and McAlpine of Moffat, and Mr. Gerard Noel, writing in The Times today are clear enough in their understanding of Government policy. In a brief letter they say:
  "Sir, why does the British Government not appeal openly and urgently to the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India and members of the EC, to take some of the Hong Kong boat people? Their forcible repatriation would be repugnant to all right thinking people."
  Recent events in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in south-east Asia have demonstrated deep contradictions in Government policy. On the very day after the Prime minister, in her Guildhall speech, hailed the march to freedom in Europe, it is worth questioning for a moment our double standards. The Prime Minister, and I agree with her, said:
  "We should recognise how immensely privileged we are to be living in these historic times, how fortunate to have a share of responsibility for the way events unfold."
  As millions of Europeans have flooded across East-West borders, and thousands have decided to stay, no one has suggested as the Under-Secretary of State did in a letter to me on 26 October that
  "their future can only lie in their own country."
  Why is it an historic event when thousands of economic migrants flee from a drab life in East Germany, and a contemporary inconvenience when they flee from Vietnam? How do we reconcile our good fortune in being able to share in the responsibility of the unfolding events in central and eastern Europe while we try to evade our responsibility towards desperate, frightened refugees seeking shelter and sanctuary in a Crown colony?
  Even deeper contradictions concern the way in which we screen the Vietnamese migrants and attempt to classify them as economic and political refugees: goats and sheep. Imagine for a moment the worldwide outcry if East Germans had been subjected to the following procedures. Mr. Yan Ji Shieh of Refugee Action—an offshoot of the Save the Children Fund—has provided me with

  331
  documentary evidence which the Minister needs to address. Refugee Action says that the language translation available during screening interviews is often wholly inadequate—and is actually conducted in three different languages; interviewees have no chance to prepare themselves and have no representation at the interviews; and a very narrow interpretation is made under the 1951 United Nations convention of what we think constitutes as a refugee.
  If an interviewee answers the first question by saying that he wants to make a better life for his family he will automatically be screened out as an economic refugee. Among those who have been screened out, and denied political status, are former soldiers from the south. If they fail to qualify, it is little wonder that very few others get through the net.
  Inevitably, any such dubious exercise will never be foolproof and is bound to lead to personally disastrous decisions. Refugee Action says that the atmosphere during interviews is often appalling; and that United Nations High Commission for Refugees officers have witnessed shouting and abuse. I hope that the Minister will say something about the rising tensions within the camps as refugees become more and more desperate. I am sure that he will have seen some of the reports last week concerning some of the events in the camp.
  It is surely worth recalling that before these interviews and subsequent refusals, many refugees have spent long years festering in squalid camps. Before that they faced long and harrowing voyages through the perilous South China seas. I have heard first-hand accounts of brutal assaults, rape, and murder as refugees lost everything in their bid for freedom and a better life. It is absurd to suggest that their decision to leave Vietnam was a soft option.
  In comparison with Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, which have at times forcibly repelled the boat people, the Hong Kong Government are to be congratulated on their humanitarian policy in acting as a place of first asylum. They have done their best to accommodate successive waves of refugees; but no one who has visited the closed camps can seriously describe the atrocious conditions as anything other than totally and utterly unacceptable. The initial willingness of the western countries to assist in resettlement was overcome in 1986 by a bad case of compassion fatigue. So far in 1989, only 3,393 refugees have been resettled from Hong Kong—a mere 149 in the United Kingdom. Does it not say something about life in Vietnam that, knowing all of this—all the obstacles and impediments that would be placed in their way—the refugees have continued to come?
  Here is another contradiction in Government policy. Last night, in another debate, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), explained that the Government's decision to end aid to Vietnam in 1979
  "was related to Vietnam's policies on human rights, the exodus of boat people and the Cambodian invasion."
  He said that Vietnam's international rehabilitation will
  "need a negotiated settlement, not a trial of strength on the battlefield."—[Official Report, 13 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 51.]
  So the Government, in refusing to restore the aid programme, have indicated their abhorrence of the regime
  332
  in Vietnam. The irony is that a restored aid programme linked to assisting farmers retain a greater proportion of the rice yield might actually help to end the exodus. Certainly, the British Refugee Council tells me that it favours its urgent restoration.
  But the Government cannot have it both ways. If the human rights record is so bad that we cannot give aid, how can we have confidence in what will happen to refugees forced to return there?
  Refugee Action says that after 15 years many former civil servants and many members of the army are still in re-education centres, deep in the jungles. It pours scorn on the idea that it will be possible to monitor the long-term retaliatory action taken against people who are forced back. After all, it is still a serious crime to leave Vietnam. And what are we to make of a country that denies freedom of movement, impedes travel overseas, and deters free speech or a free press? Refugee Action has evidence that 1,700 refugees who escaped on the last day of the war and returned in 1975 from Guam all disappeared. One re-escaped and described in detail how he had subsequently suffered.
  I help to sponsor an all-party group, the Jubilee Campaign, which campaigns for Christian prisoners of conscience. I can provide the Minister with chapter and verse about Vietnamese prisoners of faith. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence is kindly currently sponsoring one such case: that of Nguyen Van Tuoi. In 1983 he was arrested and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. He was assistant to Pastor Ho Hieu Ha, whose church was seized and turned into a Communist Youth League headquarters, and who was sent to jail for eight years. Both are still in detention at Chi Hoa prison in Ho Chi Minh City.
  Or there is the case of Father Dominique Tran Din Thu. He was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1987. His sentence was later reduced to 20 years—hardly a concession for an 83-year-old man. He and 15 other priests and monks from his order are now in a re-education camp.
  Another priest in prison in Vietnam is Father Joseph Nguyen Cong Doan, the regional superior of the Jesuits. He was gaoled for 12 years in 1981. He had obtained a Communist party document which called
  "for the extermination of the Church, and principally its bishops and priests."
  Amnesty International adds credence to the reports which the Jubilee Campaign has received. In its 1989 report, it lists details of the persecution of Buddhists and the continued detention of prisoners of conscience.
  While thinking about these reports, I was struck this morning by an account in The Independent newspaper which described the 1945 decision to send back the Yugoslays to Marshall Tito. Captain Nigel Nicolson yesterday told the court in the Aldington libel action that the refugees
  "had appealed to us for asylum, which we had granted them. They had come to trust us and now we had to break the trust and send them back to their arch-enemy."
  It is not idle fancy to see parallels with the position of the Vietnamese asylum-seekers today.
  Surely Ministers can see that involuntary repatriation will lead to vindictive retaliatory acts over which the British Government will have no effective subsequent control. Surely they can see the damage that will be done to our international reputation.

  333
  The new Foreign Secretary is a man who knows the value of compassion. Like his West German counterpart, who effectively responded to human need, he should now put his energies into finding a sane and decent solution which does not involve forcible repatriation; 56,000 people are little more than half the number who constitute a capacity crowd at Wembley. It cannot be beyond the wit of the civilised world to resettle them. When the Prime Minister and President Bush meet next week, I hope that Foreign Office Ministers will be urging that the need for a concerted international response based on responsibility and compassion will be high on their agenda.
  1.27 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for raising an issue which has attracted a great deal of attention and which, I have no doubt, will continue to do so. However, I regret the terms in which he raised a number of the issues involved. Frankly, he reported some matters in a way which did not reflect the true position, and I shall deal with some of them.
  The issue of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong was discussed nearly two years ago in the Christmas Adjournment debate, and once again in the Christmas Adjournment debate of last year. On both occasions, serious issues were raised by my hon. Friends which were addressed responsibly and realistically by the present Minister of State, Department of Employment, who was then a Minister at the Foreign Office.
  It must be clear that this is not an issue which brings pleasure to the Ministers who bear responsibility for it. It is, above all, a human problem which demands a humane and humanitarian response. It is also an issue where the commentaries and some of the commentators have simply not kept up with the pace of the events.
  The simple fact is that the situation is now dramatically different from what obtained when the debate took place in late 1987. At that stage, all those Vietnamese who arrived in Hong Kong were deemed to be refugees, whether or not they were so in reality.
  The international community had and has responded magnificently to a flow of refugees over many years and it is important to stress that undertakings have been given to resettle every refugee in the west. However, by the middle of 1988, it had become clear that the nature of the exodus from Vietnam had changed. That had begun to emerge as early as 1981. At that stage, a congressional committee in the United States had a staff report which said:
  "It is true to most observers that the character of the boat people flow has changed, even as it continues relentlessly … from numerous interviews with Vietnamese boat people in the field, especially in Hong Kong, it is clear that a growing number of Vietnamese boat people are risking flight primarily for economic reasons. A classic 'migrant' flow is developing."
  That quotation goes back to 1981. Seven years after that it was decided by Hong Kong—I think that its decision was right—that a different approach was necessary. From June 1988, a screening system was instituted. The purpose of this was quite clear: to determine which of those coming to Hong Kong were genuine refugees and which were economic migrants seeking a better life in a more prosperous country.
  The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has referred to screening, and it is important to understand what it is. It is not a process which is unique to boat people in Hong
  334
  Kong; it is a process that is applied worldwide to all those, from whatever country, travelling to whatever country, who claim to be refugees. It must be absolutely apparent that it is essential if civilised countries are to continue to provide new homes for genuine refugees, as they wish to do, that there should be some system for determining who is a genuine refugee and who is not. In truth, the process of screening varies around the world. For example, those seeking to enter the United States from Haiti are subjected to a rudimentary form of scrutiny on board ship before their feet even touch the soil of the United States. Only a tiny number are determined by the authorities to be refugees.
  In contrast, the system of screening introduced in mid-1988 in Hong Kong is sophisticated, elaborate and thorough. The procedures were developed not at the whim of the Hong Kong Government but in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the questions which asylum seekers are asked are based on a questionnaire that is set out by the UNHCR. All interviews—I stress this for the benefit of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill—can be monitored by UNHCR staff.
  The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred disparagingly, I thought, to the fact that the questions are framed in three languages. They are in English, Chinese and Vietnamese, which are the relevant languages. Surely that is a matter for praise rather than disparagement.
  Mr. Alton: I was bringing to the Minister's attention the complaint of the organisation that is called Refugee Action, which says that the immigration officer asks the questions from a UNHCR-prepared questionnaire in Cantonese. This is translated by an official Hong Kong Government interpreter into Vietnamese. The refugee's response is translated by the interpreter into Cantonese first and then into English. Notes are taken in English. Interpreters must pass a test, but their knowledge of Vietnamese is often inadequate. Officials often deviate from the questionnaire. That does not correspond with the brief with which the Minister has been supplied.
  Mr. Maude: The interviews can be monitored by the UNHCR, which takes a close interest in the process. So far as I am aware, no complaints have been made about the process, which is subject to independent scrutiny. Independent observers can be present, and that is proper. There is no other process of which I am aware which is subject to the same degree of independent scrutiny which is that elaborate, that thorough and that independent. In most instances, the process elsewhere is far more rudimentary. In addition to the interview process, there is a full appeals process, and the UNHCR can help candidates to prepare their appeal.
  I have satisfied myself that the screening process that is now in place is both fair and thorough. The results of the screening so far confirm how right it was to institute the procedure. So far, only about 13 per cent. of those arriving in Hong Kong have been determined to be refugees. The remaining 87 per cent.—nearly nine out of 10—are determined, without dispute by the UNHCR, not to be refugees.
  The hon. Member for Mossley Hill talked about the journey from Vietnam being dangerous and stressful and not an easy option. The bulk of those now arriving in Hong Kong do not set off in a boat from Vietnam to cross the sea unaided. Many of them come by public transport

  335
  across the mainland through China and travel only the last five miles by boat. The ones that do travel by boat generally coast hop from port to port. The journey is by no means as dangerous as it was made out to be. I accept that the phrase "Vietnamese bus people" does not have quite the same ring as "Vietnamese boat people", but the mundane reality is that many of those now arriving in Hong Kong are bus people more than boat people.
  The need for this process was borne out by the Geneva conference of 1989, which agreed on the comprehensive plan of action, endorsing the principle of first asylum, and recommending measures to guarantee its survival, which might otherwise have been under threat from others from Hong Kong. It is important to stress that this plan of action was and is designed to sustain the policy of first asylum to which Hong Kong is properly committed. These measures were, first, the adoption of screening throughout the region, along the lines of that already being used in Hong Kong.
  The problem in Hong Kong was already far more intense than anywhere else in the region, partly as a result of the sheer numbers of boat people, and partly because of the desperate pressure on land in the territory. We should not forget that Hong Kong has 5·7 million people in 400 square miles of extremely mountainous terrain. It was entirely right, therefore, that Hong Kong should, with our full support, have instituted this elaborate and fair system of screening when it did.
  As a result, there were two quite distinct problems to be resolved. The first—it has been much muddled by many commentators, including the hon. Gentleman—was how to resettle all who were either deemed or determined to be refugees. On this issue, the conference agreed on the resettlement of all the refugees in the region, with sufficient places pledged by the resettlement countries to guarantee a new home for them all within three years. The United Kingdom has throughout played its full part in this process, and it will continue to do so.
  The second, and I stress quite distinct, issue was: what should be the fate of those who were determined not to be refugees? On this second issue, which is what should principally concern us tonight, the conference agreed this:
  "Persons determined not to be refugees should return to their country of origin in accordance with international practices reflecting the responsibilities of states towards their own citizens. In the first instance, every effort will be made to encourage the voluntary return of such persons."
  I stress to the House that that agreement was unanimous. Not a single participant at the June conference in Geneva—not the United States of America, not the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—dissented from that conclusion.
  And so there is unanimous agreement throughout the international community that for those Vietnamese in Hong Kong who are not deemed to be refugees, there is and can be nowhere to go but Vietnam. And to those who argue glibly that there should be some great international effort to resettle non-refugees in the West, I say that not a country in the world will agree to it. It has already been tried, and it will not happen. It is dangerous and callous to suggest to people in this position that some great remedy lies around the corner. It does not and will not exist, not because of our decision but because of the unanimous decision of the international community.
  336
  The hon. Gentleman drew an analogy with East Germans arriving in West Germany. People can exercise the right of movement between countries only when there are countries that allow them to leave and countries that are prepared to receive them. We strongly support the right of people to leave their country of origin if they choose to, but it must be up to other countries to decide whether to accept them. I am glad that West Germany has decided that it will receive people—that is a matter for the West German Government. But the international community has dwelt at length on this problem and its unanimous conclusion was that no country is prepared to take Vietnamese people who are deemed not to be refugees—
  Mr. Alton: Have not the British Government thrown open military bases in West Germany and magnanimously provided places in which East German refugees can stay? Surely that contrasts with the Minister's attitude tonight. I hope that in the time that is left he will face the issue of what will happen to these refugees when they return to Vietnam. How will it be possible to monitor what happens to them? What will become of our international reputation if we are seen to use force to send people back from the refugee camps?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman makes a good comparison. He talks about the British Government making available temporary accommodation in Berlin for people seeking to move. Yes, we have done so—in the same way that, over the years, the Hong Kong Government have made available accommodation at a cost of some £100 million a year; a cost borne jointly by us and by the Hong Kong Government. They have made that accommodation available for people while they are being screened and for those deemed or determined to be refugees pending resettlement. The parallel is an exact one. We shall always accept such obligations in a spirit of generosity.
  The problem with the hon. Gentleman's approach is that he seeks to turn that temporary accommodation in Hong Kong into permanent accommodation by denying the only route that the international community has agreed, which is that they should go back to Vietnam.
  The issue that we have to face is a stark one which, I regret to say, brooks no equivocation. It is not comfortable and it is not one that any hon. Member would like to have to face, but the issue is whether we are to leave people in closed camps in Hong Kong with no hope of resettlement elsewhere when the international community has unanimously accepted that the only place for them to go is back to Vietnam.
  Everyone who has faced the problem and has borne responsibility for its resolution has come to the same conclusion. We have all approached it in the same way, not seeking a convenient solution, not trying to brush the problem away, but testing our decision against the criteria of decency, humanity and justice.
  Our conclusion has been that the process of voluntary repatriation has not provided and cannot provide an adequate solution. So far, of the 3,000 people who, after screening, have been determined not to be refugees, only 37, about 1 per cent. have volunteered to return. Faced with the choice of leaving those people in closed camps indefinitely, perhaps in the false hope that resettlement awaits them—a false hope stirred up by the hon.

  337
  Gentleman tonight—or returning them in safety and dignity to Vietnam, we have no doubt that we must do the latter.
  I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said on 25 October:
  "It will soon be necessary to tackle the thorny question of involuntary repatriation."—[Officiai Report,25 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 828]
  That is not a euphemism. "Forcible repatriation" is an emotive term and it should not be used in this context. The process of deportation is used widely throughout the world according to international standards. When a country deports illegal immigrants—that is what these people are—no assurances are sought from the home country on the safety of those returning. No arrangements are usually made for monitoring their condition and safety. But we believe that, because of the concern that has been expressed, it would be wrong for the process to start without assurances from the Vietnam Government that those who return will not be punished or badly treated and, perhaps more importantly, that their conditions after return can be properly and independently monitored.
  As I have said, it is exceptional to attach such conditions to the deportation of illegal immigrants; a process, I stress, which happens across the world every
  338
  day. The Hong Kong authorities have responded magnificently to a problem the scale of which we may not fully understand from the comfort of Westminster.
  In the course of this year, no fewer than 33,000 boat people have arrived, sometimes at the rate of 1,000 a day. But no matter how hard the authorities worked to provide good conditions in the camps, the fact is that all the camps are 50 per cent. over capacity and people and families are living in closed camps and overcrowded conditions.
  As I have said, there is nowhere for those people to go other than back to Vietnam and if conditions are unacceptable in those camps, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is all the more shameful that he should be suggesting that they should be made to stay there indefinitely.
  Mr. Alton: I am not saying that.
  Mr. Maude: No hon. Member believes that the decent and humane solution to the problem is to leave people in the camps, living out their lives in the fading belief that the West will accept them—
  The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Motorways (Lighting)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he is making into the effect on road safety on motorways of sudden transition from lit to unlit sections during hours of darkness or in other poor lighting conditions.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. Research into driver reaction times in changing from lit to unlit conditions was carried out in the 1970s. I have no evidence to suppose that its conclusions are no longer appropriate. But I am considering the introduction of lighting on further stretches of the motorways network where this can be justified. Lighting can reduce night-time accidents by 30 per cent. This has to be balanced against cost and environmental intrusion.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to stagger the transition on motorways from lit to unlit sections to enable drivers to adjust more easily to the changing conditions.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Research has shown that the average driver adapts from lit to unlit conditions at night in approximately one second. I am considering the introduction of lighting on further sections of motorway where the economic and safety advantages outweigh the cost and environmental intrusion. The introduction of lighting to fill existing gaps on the network would reduce the number of transitions between lit and unlit sections.

  Transport Studies (Greater London)
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many studies of transport within the Greater London area, by or sponsored by his Department, are in progress at the moment; and what is the cost of such studies(a) in internal departmental costs and (b) in terms of fees and payments to consultants, research organisations, and so on.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department is currently sponsoring nine studies into transport within the Greater London area. They are:

  Study

  Cost £

  For four London assessment studies

  18,550,000

  Central London rail study (jointly with BR and LRT)

  800,000

  East London rail study (jointly with DOE and LRT)

  320,000

  A4/M4 corridor study

  250,000

  Primary route signing review

  470,000

  Development of traffic management and accident prevention measures

  1,700,000

  Company assisted travel

  155,000

  Heathrow and South West London orbital movement study (HASQUAD)

  700,000

  Tourist coaches in London

  168,000

  108
  1 Total cost to date.

  Some of the studies require the use of the London transportation survey model. The total costs of development, maintenance and use of this model between April 1986 and August 1989 was £2,300,000.

  All costs relate to fees. There is no figure available for the internal departmental costs associated with these studies.

  Roads
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in the methodology adopted by his Department and its consultants, in the assessment of the effects of new or improved roads, what account is taken of the new traffic generated by the changes.

  Mr. Atkins
  The amount of entirely new traffic generated by most road schemes is not significant. However, where new traffic may be generated on a significant scale, special techniques are used including traffic models suited to the circumstances of the proposed road. We have asked the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment to consider the significance of traffic generation and redistribution, and to advise if any changes in methods are required.

  Open Space
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in the methodology adopted by his Department and its consultants in assessing what value is put on open space.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 1 November 1989 at column 192.

  East London Assessment Study
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the Government's capital plans for investment in road and rail in the east London assessment study area over the next 10 years; how much is allocated to(a) rail and (b) roads; and how much this has changed following recent developments.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's current trunk road programme includes several schemes that are wholly or partly within the east London assessment area with a total works cost of about £150 million (1987 prices). These include the A 12 Hackney to M11 link road and several schemes to upgrade the A13. Other schemes in the Department's programme outside the study boundary will also improve access to and conditions within the area. In addition, the London docklands development corporation is carrying out a number of schemes to improve movement within its area.

  British Rail and London Regional Transport are responsible for determining long-term investment plans and priorities for rail services within the overall resources available to them. Their plans include major rail investments which will benefit that area of London. Schemes include the introduction of modern rolling stock on many lines; greater capacity on the north London line; resignalling of lines into Liverpool Street station and the major redevelopment of the station itself. Further plans include new stock and resignalling on the London-Tilbury-Southend lines.
  109
  Improvements in Underground services include the £720 million modernisation of the Central Line and the reconstruction of Angel station. The City and Beckton extensions of the Docklands light railway are now under way at a cost of over £400 million.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department will instruct the east London assessment study consultants to reinstate road pricing in the options considered.

  Mr. Atkins
  It would not be appropriate to do so at this time.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the consultants carrying out the east London assessment study will be instructed to revise their study in the light of decisions regarding the jubilee line extension and the British Railway crossrail link; and what will be the impact of these rail schemes on the study.

  Mr. Atkins
  Announcements about decisions on future rail lines in London will be made shortly. The assessment study consultants will take account of those decisions in any further work.

  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what account the east London assessment study will take of(a) the outcome of the M11 link inquiry, (b) the development of the road infrastructure serving docklands and (c) the Channel terminus and King's Cross developments;

  (2) what consultation will take place regarding the east London assessment study phase IIB report, to be published in December; when consultations will begin and end; who will be consulted; and what is the revised timetable for phase III;

  (3) what is the estimated cost of the east London assessment study IIB study; when the results will be made public; and how detailed information will be made available to the public;

  (4) what was the cost of the east London assessment study phase IIA study; how many copies of the east London assessment study phase IIA report were printed; what was the cost of printing these copies; how many of these were distributed to (a) members of the public, (b) hon. Members, (c) Government Departments, (d) statutory public bodies, (e) other public bodies, (f) press, (g) commercial organisations and (h) others; how much per copy these categories were charged; and what was the total gross income from each category;

  (5) which options in the east London assessment study impinge on Lea valley and Victoria park.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and lsleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) on 23 October at column 374.

  Details of the consultant's work on the east London assessment study which takes account of developments at docklands and King's Cross will be available when the reports are published in December. The outcome of the M11 link inquiry will not be known by this date. For the purpose of the study it has been assumed that the scheme will be carried out.

  Arrangements for inviting public comment will be announced when the reports are published. There are no plans for a stage III for the study.

  The total cost of the study is estimated at about £2·5 million. The stage 2A report was a consultant's
  110
  publication and the information requested on its publication cost, sales and distribution is not readily available.

  British Rail (Drivers)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what national statistical information he has on the number of drivers employed by British Rail and on how many of them are women.

  Mr. Portillo
  The hon. Lady should approach the British Railways Board, as this information is not held by the Department.

  Bus Drivers
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statistical information he has on the number of drivers employed by London Buses and on how many of them are women.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. This is a matter for London Buses Ltd.

  London Underground (Drivers)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statistical information he has on the number of drivers employed by London Underground Ltd. and on the number who are women.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. This is a matter for London Underground Ltd.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has answered 579 oral and 2,507 written questions in the present parliamentary Session.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not held centrally.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has discontinued(a) collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.
  111
  Mr. Atkins
  Although the Department does not collect many statistics from businesses, there have been some reductions in information gathered in respect of the ports and bus industries since 1979. There have also been changes in the sources and methods used for compiling and publishing statistics. Relieving the burden on suppliers of data has been a major consideration in determining these changes.

  The principal reductions in data collection were:
  Bus and coach industry: Rationalisation of 35 separate financial and operational data flows into simpler returns. Quarterly return dropped in 1989.
  Ports: Reduction in statistics required from ports when DTp took over functions of the National Ports Council in 1980. Some reduction in published data.
  Road freight: discontinuation of goods vehicle list because data from DVLC were found to be a satisfactory alternative. A small survey of market conditions in the international road haulage industry for the European Community is now conducted by a private sector organisation.

  Publication of statistics has expanded. The latest issue of "Transport Statistics Great Britain" is a larger volume than the 1979 edition, but, as a result of the introduction of desktop publishing methods, the cover price has remained virtually unchanged.

  Churchill Flyovers, Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the delay in repairing the Churchill flyovers in Liverpool;

  (2) on what date the Churchill flyovers in Liverpool were opened; when they were closed for repair; when is the expected date for reopening; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what was the cost of building the Churchill flyovers in Liverpool; and what is the estimated cost of repair.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Liverpool city council is the highway authority for the Churchill way flyovers and these are questions for the council. However, I understand that the southern flyover is open to traffic although the northern one remains closed.

  School Buses
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to make school buses more recognisable by other vehicles.

  Mr. Atkins
  I attach great importance to improving child safety, including on school buses. Having considered carefully representations from my hon. Friend and others, I have decided that there is a case for requiring buses carrying school children to be marked with a distinctive sign. I shall shortly circulate proposals for consultation in the usual way. This need not stop local authorities making their own plans for improving safety on school buses in advance of new regulations. I understand that Devon county council is planning to introduce new signs on its buses on an experimental basis from next January.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations exist relating to seating capacity on designated school buses; and if he has any plans to introduce regulations requiring school buses to be fitted with seat belts.
  112
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984 (SI 1984/1406) allow three seated children under the age of 14 to be counted as two passengers.

  We already require seat belts on the front seats on new coaches and minibuses. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) on 27 July our aim is to get this provision extended to all the seats in coaches and minibuses. Meanwhile, we are encouraging local education authorities to specify that wherever possible vehicles used to transport children are fitted with belts and to see that they are worn.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations exist relating to the safety of children who are fare-paying passengers on designated school buses; what regulations exist relating to the supervision of such children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: All vehicles used to carry fare-paying passengers including school buses must comply with the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986/1078) as amended, and the Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment and Use) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981/257) as amended.

  Although there are no regulations relating to the supervision of children on journeys to or from school, we strongly urge local education authorities, schools and parents to ensure that adequate arrangements exist.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the safety of children riding on designated school buses.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: A number of parents, school governors, teachers and children have written both direct and through hon. Members, concerning the provision of seat belts and the use of distinguishing signs on vehicles used for carrying children.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sarawak
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to ban imports from Sarawak in the light of the Malaysian Government's actions against the tribal people of Sarawak.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. It is the policy of my Department that civil trade with other countries should continue to be determined by commercial considerations.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any assistance or encouragement is being given by his Department to the recycling of freezers so as to dispose of chlorofluorocarbons and provide for their replacement by safer chemicals.

  Mr. Forth
  Systems are already well established for the recovery and recycling of CFCs used in industrial and commercial refrigerators. Recovery of the small amount of CFCs found in the coolants in domestic refrigerators is
  113
  relatively straightforward, and several companies and local authorities have introduced or are planning schemes for CFC recovery from this source. Extraction of CFCs in foam-based insulants is technically much more difficult. My right hon. Friend has commissioned a wide-ranging study into the recovery, recycling and destruction of CFCs and the Government will take its findings into account when considering whether any action is called for on this issue. The results of the study are expected early next year.

  Much work is being done to produce substitutes for the range of CFCs currently in use. ICI has recently announced a £30 million plant for manufacturing an alternative to CFC12, used in most fridges. This substitute, known as HFA134A, is the first in a family of planned CFC replacements under development in the United Kingdom.

  Voluntary Restraint Agreements
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of voluntary restraint agreements in operation between Japan and the United Kingdom; when each was introduced; for what purpose they were introduced; and what additional sums fall to be paid in each category by consumers in consequence of any assurances required on pricing and other issues; if he will take steps to cancel the restrictions on the imports of cars from Japan: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are aware of only one current voluntary restraint arrangement—that on imports of vehicles from Japan, which came into operation in 1975 following discussions between the United Kingdom and Japanese vehicle industries. The arrangement involves no assurance on prices. There have been several academic and other studies attempting to estimate how far the VRA raises overall car prices in the United Kingdom, with results ranging from 2 to 10 per cent.

  As part of the preparations for completion of the single market in 1992, the European Commission is expected shortly to make proposals for an EC-wide policy on Japanese vehicle imports. When proposals are available, the Government will give them careful consideration.

  Ashdown House
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he hopes to complete the refurbishment of Ashdown house to restore it to full operational use.

  Mr. Forth
  Refurbishment of the foyer of Ashdown house will be finished by the end of the year. I apologise for any inconvenience the work has caused. The rest of the building is fully operational.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many written parliamentary questions to 114
  him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information (a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information is as follows:

  1988–89

  Number

  Not available

  56

  Not separately recorded

  6

  Not centrally recorded

  8

  Not recorded in Government statistics

  6

  Could be provided only at disproportionate cost

  16

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  None.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Ridley
  During the 1988–89 Session my Department was asked 676 oral and 1,756 written questions.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Thailand
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that the allocation of any aid in the future to Thailand will be unconnected with arms contracts between the United Kingdom and the Thai Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There is no question of any connection between the allocation of British bilateral aid to Thailand and any arms contracts concluded between the British and Thai Governments.

  Biwaters
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contracts have been awarded to Biwaters which have been the subject of Overseas Development Administration financial assistance between 1981 and 1989.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We do not keep a central record of all the companies with which aid financed contracts are placed. We are aware however, that the following contracts were placed with Biwater, financed from the aid and trade provision:

  Aid allocation

  Project

  £ million

  1986

  Malaysia rural water supply project

  59·460

  1988

  Sri Lanka hill country water project

  2·129

  61·589

  Financial Assistance
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his practice on the provision of financial assistance for projects which have not been the subject of tendering procedures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Where, exceptionally, contracts have been let without competitive tendering, the ODA has sought to ensure value for money in other ways, including, where appropriate, a detailed review of the contract price.

  Iraq (ODA Assistance)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Overseas Development Administration support has been provided to the republic of Iraq in each year over the last seven years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

  Nigeria (ODA Assistance)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Overseas Development Administration support was provided to the Government of Nigeria for water control and extraction projects in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement on the operation of these projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None. But we have just agreed to fund a consultancy in support of a proposed World Bank rehabilitation project in Nigeria.

  Euphrates (ODA Assistance)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement as to progress on the Overseas Development Administration-supported water extraction and control project on the Euphrates.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration is not providing support for such a project.

  Malaysia (ODA Assistance)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement as to progress on the Overseas Development Adminstration-supported project in Malaysia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration supports a number of projects and programmes in Malaysia. They are:

  Technical co-operation training programme

  Rural primary English project

  Teachers training college language proficiency project

  Secondary school curriculum project

  Geological survey of Malaysia project

  Adviser in population projections and demographic statistics

  North West water software

  North East Thailand Development Project
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what support his Department has given in relation to the contract for the north-east Thailand development project;
  116
  (2) whether his Department has made any assessment of the military implications in the contract awarding the north-east Thailand development contract to Messrs. Biwaters;

  (3) whether representatives of his Department discussed the contract for the north-east Thailand development project with Biwaters.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government have indicated to the Government of Thailand its readiness in principle to provide aid and trade provision support for the Green-E-Sarn development programme. This has involved discussions with Biwaters who are actively pursuing contracts associated with this programme. The Green-ESarn project, while originally put forward by the Thai military authorities, is a civil project for rural development in north-east Thailand, and is the responsibility of the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand: there are thus no military implications for the Department to assess.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many lawyers have resigned from the Crown prosecution service during the last six months.

  The Attorney-General
  A total of 38 lawyers resigned from the Crown prosecution service during the six months to 31 October 1989.

  Wardship Cases
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many wardship cases were commenced in the High Court in(a) the current year to date, (b) 1988, (c) 1987, (d) 1986, (e) 1985, (f) 1984 and (g)

  The Attorney-General
  The numbers of wardship cases commenced in the High Court in each year from 1983 to 1988 and in the first seven months of 1989 are as follows:

  Originating summonses issued

  Year

  Number

  1983

  2,140

  1984

  2,408

  1985

  2,815

  1986

  3,399

  1987

  3,605

  1988

  3,704

  19891

  2,418

  1 January to July

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of the advertising campaign to recruit staff to the Crown prosecution service in(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d) the current year to present date.

  The Attorney-General
  The information, which is only readily available for the financial years beginning 1 April and ending 31 March, is as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  80,750

  1987–88

  114,500

  1988–89

  240,000

  1 April 1988 to 31 October 1989

  184,330

  Family Court
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General when the working party into the possibility of a family court last met; and how many Departments were represented on it.

  The Attorney-General
  The interdepartmental committee on family and domestic jurisdictions, part of whose terms of reference was to examine the feasibility of the establishment of a unified court for the exclusive exercise of jurisdiction in family and domestic matters, last met in August of 1988. The four Departments represented on that Committee were the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Home Office and the Treasury.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  The Attorney-General
  Other than questions withdrawn or transferred, I was asked 86 oral questions and 391 written questions during the 1988–89 parliamentary Session.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Attorney-General how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Attorney-General how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics and (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested by the hon. Member is as follows:

  (a) 10

  (b) 1

  (c) 0

  (d) 1

  (e) 17

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not ascertainable.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Attorney-General whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Law of Protective Surveillance, Czechoslovakia
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Czechoslovak Government under 118
  the terms of the Helsinki Final Act of the Vienna concluding document, concerning continued use of the law of protective surveillance, number 44 of 25 April 1973; and if he will urge the Czechoslovak Government to repeal the law immediately.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The documents quoted by my hon. Friend do not contain provisions that would allow us to make representations in the way he proposes. However, we have taken advantage many times of the opportunities provided by the CSCE follow-up and intersessional meetings to remind states such as Czechoslovakia of their CSCE commitments on human rights. We have made clear our concern at all infringements—most recently in August over the detention and hunger strike of the dissident Stanislav Devaty.

  North Korea (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to instruct Her Majesty's ambassador to the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to request Director-General Blix to visit North Korea in order to ascertain the reasons from the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards directorate why North Korea is five years late in accepting the mandatory safeguards provisions following its accession to the non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continues to be in direct contact with the authorities in North Korea about a safeguards agreement. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we do not recognise North Korea as a state.

  Parties to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) are obliged, in accordance with its article III, to commence negotiation of safeguards agreements not later than the date of deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession. Such agreements must enter into force not later than 18 months after the date of initiation of negotiations.

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries with which the United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member 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.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the existing diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Maude
  We and our EC partners maintain diplomatic relations with China. But the measures adopted by the Madrid European Council to register our concern at the June events in Peking remain in force.

  Recognition of Countries
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries the United Kingdom does not recognise.
  119
  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are a number of territories not recognised by the United Kingdom as independent sovereign states:

  North Korea

  Taiwan

  Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

  Micronesia

  Palestine

  Saharan Arab Democratic Republic

  Transkei, Ciskei, Venda and Bophuthatswana (the South African "homelands").

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  Diplomatic wing

  (a)

  747

  (b)

  1,533

  ODA wing:

  (a)

  240

  (b)

  380

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None, except for those that have been transferred.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics and (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not available as it is not recorded centrally.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information requested by the hon. Member is not available as it is not recorded centrally.

PRIME MINISTER

  United Nations
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations.

  The Prime Minister
  I attended the UN General Assembly on 8 November, where I gave a speech on environmental policy. I have no further current plans to visit the United Nations.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans she has to visit hostels for the homeless in London.

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

  Global Warming
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received on the subject of global warming.

  The Prime Minister
  Global warming and climate change were central to debate at the United Nations General Assembly which I attended last week. The Government have given a lead in tackling the problem of climate change, in particular through our aid programme for conserving tropical forests. The United Kingdom is the first developed country to have signed such a conservation agreement with countries with tropical forests. I was pleased to be able to announce at the United Nations that £100 million would be made available under our tropical forest actions programme.

  I was also pleased to receive the report of the conclusions of the Noordwijk conference on air pollution and climate change at which the United Kingdom played a leading role. The declaration endorsed the work of the intergovernmental panel on climate change and our call for an international framework convention on climate change.

  Food Destruction
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of Community expenditure devoted to the destruction of food.

  The Prime Minister
  I have argued at several European Councils that action be taken to tackle the waste and expense of the common agricultural policy (CAP). I am pleased to say that the need for reform has now been recognised. Considerable progress has been made towards a more rational and sustainable CAP. I shall certainly take every opportunity to impress upon our Community partners the need to ensure that this process of reform is maintained.

  Mr. Bernard Ingham
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister how much longer she expects Mr. Bernard Ingham to remain as press secretary in No. 10 Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Ingham will remain as chief press secretary in No. 10 until it is time for him to leave.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the introduction of the community charge.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government continue to receive many representations on the community charge which is increasingly being recognised as a fairer alternative to domestic rates. It also relates to ability to pay where it matters most. A total of 9·5 million community charge payers are expected to be eligible for rebates. Most local authorities have welcomed the arrangements for transitional relief announced last month.

  Water Act
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the implementation of the Water Act.

  The Prime Minister
  I welcome the rapid implementation of the Water Act, which is strengthening the protection of our water environment and will deliver a thriving, efficient, private sector water industry within strong and essential public regulation.

  Wolverhampton
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will visit Wolverhampton.

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

  Stroud
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will visit Stroud.

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

  Overseas Aid Assistance
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister whether representatives of Her Majesty's Government have discussed with foreign Governments arms or civil engineering contracts which have been connected with overseas aid assistance.

  The Prime Minister
  Overseas aid is frequently used to finance civil engineering contracts that are of benefit to developing countries. It is not used in connection with sales of military equipment.

  Bank of England
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her policy towards the scheme for the independence of the Bank of England.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing to add to my reply to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on 2 November 1989,Official Report, column 464.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister on which date she last used public transport to attend an official function in Britain; and what was the type of transport used.

  The Prime Minister
  I travelled by train to an official function on 31 August 1989.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of her Department in 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally. However, an approximate record of this information is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister how many written parliamentary questions she refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  Of those questions not transferred, none.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister how many written parliamentary questions addressed to her received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions by her office in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  The Prime Minister
  As many questions have to be referred to other Departments we do not calculate these items specifically here.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Prime Minister whether her office has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  Until July 1989 the Central Statistical Office reported to me. During that period it was not responsible for collecting statistics. Changes in the basis of compilation, presentation and publication of statistical series were made from time to time in response to the requirements of Government and international organisations for statistical information. Other changes reflected changes in administrative systems on which some series are based, the development of new statistical data. When such changes were made they were fully documented in the relevant statistical publications.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties
  123
  in the House, I shall be having further meetings this afternoon. This evening I hope to have an Audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

WALES

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each local authority area in Wales the proportion of poll tax registration forms which have been duly returned to his registration officer.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information is not held centrally. I understand, however, that the Welsh charging authorities have achieved high levels of registration. I expect to receive details of registered population from each charging authority shortly.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that holiday homes which seek to be treated for poll tax purposes under the standard business rating system will be required to obtain a change of use approval from the local planning authority before any such rating designation is operational.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. The question whether any given hereditament, such as a holiday home, is to be regarded as non-domestic and so rateable is a matter for the valuation officer, whose decision will be made having regard to regulations which are to be made under powers conferred by the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The regulations will be laid before the House shortly.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any instructions or guidelines have been issued by the Welsh Office to district councils in Wales concerning the collection of community charges on a weekly or monthly basis from people facing difficulties in making the full payment; and what conditions have been placed on local authorities in facilitating any such staged payment scheme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  All Welsh local authorities have been sent a copy of community charge practice note No. 12, "Collection of the Community Charge". Paragraphs 4.7–4.9 of that practice note remind authorities that some ratepayers will be accustomed to paying rates and rent together on a weekly or fortnightly schedule; and recommend authorities to consider how far they wish to afford chargepayers the opportunity to pay on a weekly or fortnightly basis, having regard to the benefits to chargepayers and the additional administrative costs involved. A copy of the practice note is in the Library of the House.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further resources he will make available to the National Health Service in Wales to enable more hospitals to treat heart patients and to fit pacemakers.

  Mr. Grist
  Substantial additional funds have recently been made available to improve access to cardiac treatment for patients in Clwyd, to secure additional cardiological and cardiac surgery procedures for adults and children in other parts of Wales and to build a new 124
  paediatric cardiac unit in Cardiff. In addition, consideration is being given to securing a further expansion of adult cardiac services, including the development of a second cardiac centre in Wales.

  Schools Management
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his answer of 7 November to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, he will make a statement on the year-on-year cost of the operation and administration of local management of schools in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  It is for LEAs to assess the cost associated with the preparation and introduction of schemes for financial delegation to schools. These assessments form the basis for their bids to the Department of specific grant support.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 7 November to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, if he will state(a) the exact figure for specific grant support for expenditure on local management of schools for the period 1989–90 to 1991–92, (b) the planned cash figure for specific grant support for expenditure on local management of schools for (i) 1989–90, (ii) 1990–91 and (iii) 1991–92 and (c) in separate columns for 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and for the total specific grant support for expenditure on local management of schools for (1) the introduction of local management, (2) the training of governors and (3) local education authority inspection.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is shown in the table:

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Total

  Introduction of local management

  1·0

  1·652

  1·652

  4·304

  Training of Governors

  0·4

  0·4

  0·4

  1·2

  LEA inspection

  0·16

  0·4

  0·56

  1·12

  Total

  1·56

  2·452

  2·612

  6·624

  Computers (Schools)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the need for additional computers for educational needs in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Department launched a five-year strategy to develop information technology across the curriculum in 1988–89. Funding within the education support grant programme provides increased equipment levels and an advisory teacher service in schools. The Department is currently considering ways to focus the programme to support the implementation of technology as a subject in the national curriculum.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to ensure that adequately trained teachers are available to teach technology under the national curriculum; and what proposals he has for the retraining of teachers who are not specialist technology
  125
  teachers and that courses for student teachers are amended to take account of the technology component of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The in-service teacher training scheme provides for the training of existing teachers. Although it is the responsibility of local education authorities to ensure that teachers are adequately trained to teach their speciality subjects, we have increased significantly the resources available next year through the local education authority training grant scheme to enable LEAs to carry out the training required.

  The new arrangements just announced for the accreditation of initial teacher training make express provision for the training of design and technology for intending primary teachers alongside all other subjects in the primary curriculum.

  A bursary of £1,300 is paid, in addition to the usual mandatory award entitlement, to attract students to secondary post graduate certificate of education courses in craft, design and technology. A further incentive supplement of £1,200 is available to those students if they follow an extended Welsh-medium course.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the teaching of technology under the national curriculum.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has undertaken a consultation on proposals for technology in the national curriculum. Responses to the consultation are being analysed and considered at the present time. The introduction of technology into schools as a national curriculum subject will be preceded by a further consultation on draft orders and the making of final orders.

  Clwyd Local Education Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a special allocation of funds to Clwyd local education authority to enable it to facilitate adequate full-time staffing in(a) high schools, (b) primary schools and (c) infants schools, consequent upon local management of schools and the requirements of new legislation.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In 1989–90 Clwyd LEA received specific grant support for expenditure of £141,000 for the introduction of local management and £46,700 for staff development and support for the introduction of the national curriculum core subjects. Its bids for 1990–91 are currently being considered along with those of the other Welsh LEAs.

  In addition, an allocation of some £500,000 will be available in 1990–91 from the LEA training grants scheme to assist the LEA with the provision of in-service teacher training to ensure that teachers in Clwyd are adequately prepared for the delivery of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a special allocation of funds to Clwyd local education authority to enable it to facilitate adequate ancillary staffing in(a) high, (b) primary and (c) infant schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for the number of ancillary staff employed in Clwyd schools lies entirely with 126
  the education authority which must decide such matters in line with its assessment of priorities within the education service.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a special allocation of funds to Clwyd local education authority to enable the authority to improve its capitation allowances by a minimum of 10 per cent. in(a) infants, (b) primary and (c) high schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for the level of capitation allowances in Clwyd schools lies entirely with the education authority which must decide such matters in line with its assessment of priorities within the question service.

  School Meals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the school meals service in Wales consequent upon the local management of schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government's policy on the future of the school meals service is set out in paragraphs 62 to 64 of Welsh Office circular 36/88, a copy of which is in the Library. We will be prepared to consider excepting the service from delegation to schools where there is a clearly identified need for the local education authority to retain control. However, we would expect the service to be delegated, subject to the overriding provisions of the competition requirements of the Local Government Act 1988, where a school can demonstrate that it is able to provide a service, including appropriate health and nutritional standards, at least as economically as the local education authority.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many incidents of food poisoning were recorded in Wales between April and October of the current year; and what were the half-yearly figures recorded in Wales during the last three years.

  Mr. Grist
  There were 2,120 notifications to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of food poisoning in Wales between 1 April and 27 October 1989. Half-yearly statistics for the past three years are shown in the table:

  Notifications1 of food poisoning

  January to June

  July to December

  1986

  488

  925

  1987

  687

  988

  1988

  784

  21,169

  1989

  21,022

  1 Includes food poisoning formally notified and food poisoning ascertained by other means.

  2 Data from the fourth quarter 1988 onwards are derived from OPCS Monitor, Weekly Return (WR Series) and are provisional. Preceding data are derived from OPCS Monitor, Infectious Diseases (MB2 Series).

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much time it takes on average for incidents of food poisoning in Wales to be communicated to the population at large.

  Mr. Grist
  Local authorities have the prime responsibility for controlling food poisoning outbreaks, but in
  127
  certain circumstances the Welsh Office may be involved. Most incidents are small in scale and/or confined to a readily identifiable group of people. As such warnings to the public at large are not necessarily appropriate. Where however the extent and geographical distribution of a particular incident warrants a general warning, the aim is to issue suitable, specific guidance as soon as it is practicable to do so.

  During the recent serious incident of food poisoning involving salmonella typhimurium in north Wales, several press notices containing specific advice to the public were released by the Department. On each occasion, the notice was released on the same date as the information it contained was received from the local authorities involved.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of oral and written questions asked were 224 and 1,606 respectively.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary session 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None, except for a few transferred to other Departments for answer.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department collects and publishes a wide range of statistical material covering many aspects of life in the Principality. The latest list of regular statistical publications is shown as follows. Those marked with an asterisk were also published in 1979. This list illustrates the increased availability of Welsh Office statistics. In addition to the regular publications there is a range of ad hoc statistical bulletins.

  The very quantity of statistics now published by the Department means that information on all changes to individual statistics could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. These changes result from the continuous
  128
  process of attempting to improve the coverage and relevance of Welsh Office statistics. There are regular reviews which lead to changes in the basis of compilation, presentation and publication. These arise in response to the Government's requirements for statistical information, changes in the administrative systems on which some series are based, and the development of new technological developments affecting the compilation and dissemination of statistical data.

  Regular Publications in 1989

  Activities of Social Services Departments

  Children in Care

  Commercial and Industrial Floorspace Statistics

  *Digest of Welsh Statistics

  Environmental Digest for Wales

  Farm Income in Wales

  *Health and Personal Social Services

  Household Projections for the Counties of Wales

  Key Statistical Indicators for NHS Management

  Mental Health Statistics

  Population Projections for the Counties of Wales

  Road Accidents

  Residential Accommodation for the Elderly, Younger Physically Handicapped and Blind

  *1{Statistics of Education: Further and Higher Education/Statistics of Education: Schools

  Staff of Social Services Departments

  * Welsh Agricultural Statistics

  * Welsh Economic Trends

  Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin

  Welsh Housing Statistics

  * Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics

  *Welsh Social Trends

  Welsh Transport Statistics

  * Published in 1979.

  1 In 1979, these two volumes were published in one entitled "Statistics of Education in Wales".

  Ad hoc Publications

  Crime Prevention Topics

  Digest of Welsh Historical Statistics

  Incidence of Congenital Malformations

  Statistics of Road Lengths

  Survey of House Renovation Grants

  Wales Cancer Reports

  Welsh Education Statistics Bulletins

  Welsh House Condition Surveys

  Welsh Inter Censal Survey

ENVIRONMENT

  Leicester Schools (Ancillary Workers)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many ancillary workers are employed in Leicester schools; and how many were so employed in October 1979.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This information is not held centrally.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of grant paid by his Department over the last financial year to the Nature Conservancy Council; and how much of this money was spent on(a) Wales and (b) England.

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

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide the figure of the total sum spent on Heveningham hall on repairs, on central heating and on the introduction of other services, following its purchase in 1970 to the time of its sale in 1981, detailing the separate expenditures; and whether he has received any representations since 1981 seeking public funds for further work on the hall.

  Mr. Trippier
  I regret that this information is no longer available. We have received no such representations from the present owner.

  Boot and Boswell Dwellings
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the position of Boot and Boswell defective dwellings in Liverpool.

  Mr. Chope
  Liverpool have reported the following ownerships for Boot and Boswell dwellings:

  Local authority

  Private owners

  Boot

  1,073

  401

  Boswell

  926

  568

  The city council has received 786 applications for assistance under the housing defects legislation and has discussed its statutory obligations in detail with my officials.

  Air Pollution
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent from 1987 to the current year by Her Majesty's Government on monitoring air pollution by(a) nitrogen oxides and their reaction with hydrocarbons, (b) sulphur dioxide and (c) lead pollution; and what information he has on the comparable expenditure of other European Community states.

  Mr. Trippier
  United Kingdom Government expenditure on monitoring nitrogen oxides (NOx) and the products of their reaction with gaseous hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide and lead between 1987–88 and 1989–90 was as follows:

  £k.

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  (a) Nitrogen oxides and their reaction with hydrocarbons

  NO2 directive network

  131·0

  115·0

  117·5

  Rural ozone-NOx network

  538·2

  435·0

  435·0

  Total

  669·2

  550·0

  552·5

  (b) Sulphur dioxide

  SO2-smoke directive network

  159·0

  164·0

  183·0

  SO2 rural network

  45·9

  48·8

  50·0

  Acid deposition network

  634·0

  496·0

  421·0

  Total

  838·9

  708·8

  654·0

  (c) Lead

  Total: all lead networks

  44·2

  43·6

  44·2

  130

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  (d) Preparation of emission inventories for NOx, volatile organic hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide, lead and other pollutants

  87·8

  98·0

  106·0

  Grand totals

  1,640·1

  1,400·4

  1,356·7

  There is no internationally agreed database on European Community expenditure for pollution monitoring.

  Expenditure on a monitoring network is normally greater in the initial years while it is being established than later when it is operating routinely.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the terms of the agreement reached by the industrial countries' meeting in Noordwijk, concerning emissions of carbon dioxide; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have today placed a copy of the Noordwijk declaration on atmospheric pollution and climate change in the Library. I am pleased that the United Kingdom was able to play a part in securing agreement on carbon dioxide emissions contained in the declaration, but this is only one of a number of important conclusions. I also very much welcome the unanimous commitment to the early negotiation of a framework convention on climate change.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he can give of the total reduction of British emissions of carbon dioxide which will be achieved as a result of the conference and agreement reached at Noordwijk.

  Mr. Trippier
  The agreement reached at Noordwijk was for a stabilisation of CO2 emissions as a first step by industrialised nations. The detailed basis for such a stabilisation, together with options for a longer-term target regime are to be considered at the second world climate conference in the light of the IPCC interim report.

  Partridges
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 1 November,Official Report, column 237, why he has decided to extend the open general licence to release chukar and hybrid partridges into the wild.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The decision to extend the open general licence to release chukar and hybrid partridges until the end of 1992 was based upon advice from the Government's species advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council, following the report from the Game Conservancy. No releases of chukars or their hybrids will be allowed beyond this date.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to bring his planning guidance note No. 3 into the arena of appeals decision-making; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Yes. A revised version of planning policy guidance note No. 3 (PPG3) on housing was issued as a
  131
  consultation document on 4 October, and comments may be made until 5 January 1990. My right hon. Friend intends to issue a new PPG3 early in the new year, as soon as he has had the chance to consider the responses to the consultation paper. It will then formally become Government policy, to be taken into account, along with other material considerations, in planning appeal decisions.

  Sports and Recreational Clubs
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the draft guidelines he has issued to local authorities regarding non-domestic rates relief for sports and recreational clubs from April 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  The draft guidelines, which were issued as a consultation document, are being revised in the light of responses received. We intend to issue them shortly in the form of a practice note for charging authorities which will also be available to interested organisations. A copy of the practice note will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Conservation of Wild Birds
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the terms of reference for the Nature Conservancy Council's current overview of areas meeting the criteria for designation under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds.

  Mr. Trippier
  The NCC was asked to produce an overview setting out the requirements for the British series of special protection areas to ensure:the proper protection, survival and requisition of species listed on Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive throughout their natural range in Great Britain; the safeguard of important breeding, moulting, wintering and nesting sites of migratory birds not listed on Annex 1; particular attention being paid to wetlands and especially those of international importance.

  Formal terms of reference were not provided.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Nature Conservancy Council's overview of special protection areas has delayed the designation of sites under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds; and whether additional resources have been made available to the Nature Conservancy Council in order to conduct the study.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have continued consultations in respect of sites notified by the NCC as potential special protection areas in parallel with the NCC's production of the study. No additional resources were provided as the NCC took the view that the necessary expertise was available.

  Leicester (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he or any of his Ministers next intends to visit Leicester.

  Mr. Chope
  I intend to visit Leicester on 22 November to tour an estate action scheme and discuss housing matters with Leicester city council.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  So far this Session approximately 5,800 questions have been tabled to my Department. Of these 1,050 were tabled for oral answer and 133 actually received an oral reply. The remainder have received a written answer.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  It is the policy of my Department to answer all parliamentary questions except those involving disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many written parliamentary questions received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  This information is not held centrally.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The statistics collected by all Government Departments are subject to regular and searching reviews, as a result of which some surveys are eliminated and many are substantially modified.

  The following are the major published statistical series that have been dropped or introduced by my Department since 1979.

  Series Dropped Since 1979

  Commercial and industrial floorspace statistics.

  Private enterprise housing enquiry.

  Local authority salary and wage statistics.

  Local authority expenditure budget estimates (at November prices).

  Local authority design work statistics.

  Subcontracted construction output statistics.

  EC state of trade enquiry (for construction).

  Local authority funded housing association tender acceptance statistics.

  Series Introduced Since 1979

  Enterprise zone annual monitoring statistics.

  Land use change statistics.

  Renovation grants applications and approvals statistics.

  Expansion of council house sales statistics to cover 'right to buy' purchases.

  Planning appeals statistics.

  133

  Information from local authorities on selective tendering.

  Carbon dioxide and ozone statistics.

  Land registers computerised service.

  Statistics under the tradeable information initiative.

  Statistics on county councils planning decisions.

  Rent Arrears
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have failed to comply with their statutory requirements to make up and balance their accounts within six months of the end of each financial year by more than(a) six months, (b) 12 months, (c) 18 months, (d) two years, (e) three years and (f) four years in arrears.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Such information is not held by the Department or centrally by the Audit Commission. However, the Audit Commission's 1987–88 report showed that 80 local authorities had not published their 1986–87 accounts by 31 December 1987, and of those, 45 had still not published by mid-March 1988. The Audit Commission's 1988–89 report showed that 32 local authorities had not published their 1987–88 accounts by 31 December 1988 and, of those, 12 had still not published by June 1989.

  Title

  Date of issue

  Response required by

  Non-Domestic Rating

  Local Rating Lists and Cross-Boundary Property Regulations

  31 January 1989

  28 March 1989

  Non-Domestic Rating: Transition

  16 February 1989

  14 April 1989

  Valuation of Composite Hereditaments

  20 February 1989

  14 April 1989

  Local Non-Domestic Rate (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1989

  21 February 1989

  24 April 1989

  Payments into the Non-Domestic Rate Pool

  20 March 1989

  12 May 1989

  Valuation for Rating (Mines and Quarries) Regulations 1989

  23 March 1989

  19 May 1989

  Rating Lists: Alterations and Appeals

  28 March 1989

  26 May 1989

  Non-Domestic Rating: Decapitalisation Rate

  3 April 1989

  19 May 1989

  Discretionary Rate Relief

  4 April 1989

  26 May 1989

  Rating Valuation of Public Utilities

  14 July 1989

  12 September 1989

  Duty of Charging Authorities to Consult

  28 July 1989

  22 September 1989

  Unoccupied Property Rates

  25 September 1989

  31 October 1989

  Central Rating Lists and the Prescription of Rateable Values

  4 October 1989

  6 November 1989

  Rate Demand Notice and Accompanying Information

  4 October 1989

  6 November 1989

  Charging Authority's Duty to Supply Information to the VO

  4 October 1989

  6 November 1989

  Leisure Caravan Parks

  20 October 1989

  18 November 1989

  Valuation and Community Charge Tribunal Regulations: Consultation Paper on Amendments to Cover Non-Domestic Rating Appeals

  27 October 1989

  24 November 1989

  Precepts and Levies

  Draft Collection Fund Regulations

  30 August 1989

  20 October 1989

  General Provisions for Levying Bodies

  18 October 1989

  10 November 1989

  Grant

  Revenue Support Grant 1990–91

  6 November 1989

  4 December 1989

  Capital Finance

  Revised Block Borrowing Approval

  14 February 1989

  16 March 1989

  Specific Grants on Loan Charges

  14 April 1989

  19 May 1989

  Further paper on specific grants on Loan charges

  25 August 1989

  29 September 1989

  ERDF Grants

  25 September 1989

  No date given

  Costs of credit arrangements

  10 October 1989

  3 November 1989

  Regulations to be made under Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Bill

  18 October 1989

  17 November 1989

  Approval Investments

  19 October 1989

  24 November 1989

  Further Proposals for Regulations

  24 October 1989

  17 November 1989

  134
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are open to him in respect of local authorities which have failed to comply with their statutory requirements to make up and balance their accounts within six months of the end of each financial year; and what such steps he has taken.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Any person failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the statutory requirements is liable to prosecution. The auditor is best placed to judge whether such legal action would be warranted or be likely to succeed.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the consultation papers on local government finance he has issued to local authorities or local authority associations during 1989, giving for each the date on which it was issued and the date by which comments were requested.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows:

  Advertising Campaign (Community Charge)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish full details of his planned advertising campaign to publicise the poll tax relief and rebate schemes, including the proposed start date for the campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. We are, however, planning an information campaign to ensure that those eligible are aware of entitlement to community charge benefits and transitional relief, the details of which have not yet been settled.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which authority, and which data for local authorities, have occasioned the need for a rate support grant supplementary report for 1989–90, notified in a letter to local authorities on 7 November; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The need for a supplementary report has arisen because of incorrect data being used for road lengths in the London borough of Croydon.

  Metal Discharges
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals under consideration for the imposition of more stringent controls on industry to prevent discharges of metals into the sewerage system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: We have announced our intention to bring forward proposals to introduce strict new integrated pollution controls over industrial sectors with the greatest pollution potential. These controls will cover the release of wastes to all media, including sewers.

  Meanwhile, the Water Act 1989 and the Trade Effluents (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1989, which came into force on 1 September, introduced new controls over discharges to sewer of a number of priority substances, including several groups of metal compounds. Proposals for new or altered discharges to sewer containing these substances must be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who also has powers to review existing consents. In exercising his powers of determination in such cases my right hon. Friend will be guided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution as to the best available technology not entailing excessive cost for reducing inputs of these substances to a minimum.

  In addition, Department of the Environment circular 7/89, issued earlier this year, set environmental quality standards in rivers and marine waters for a range of metals. Where these standards are not met, the National Rivers Authority is required to undertake programmes for pollution reduction, which may in some cases entail tighter controls on discharges from sewers and sewage treatment works, and hence on trade effluent inputs to the sewerage system.

  Horton Bank Top Reservoir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will direct Yorkshire Water to publish a report on the safety of Horton Bank Top reservoir 136
  recently prepared following an inspection by an inspecting engineer drawn from a panel appointed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: The Secretary of State has no power to direct the publication of reports to reservoir owners by panel engineers. Enforcement of the requirements of the Reservoir Act 1975 is the responsibility of county and metropolitan district councils, to which engineers have to send copies of their reports.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what implications the Forestry Commission's research into the storage of carbon in trees and timber has for future environmental policy in Great Britain.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: Better figures for carbon fixation will help in evaluating the role forestry might play in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the value of further encouraging forestry in the United Kingdom.

  Water Conservation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the percentage of water lost in the process of distribution from the reservoir onwards by each of the water companies in England and Wales;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the percentage of water lost in the course of distribution and the comparable figure for each of the past five years for each of the water companies in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: This information is not held centrally. Water companies can however make broad estimates of unaccounted for water and the latest figures available for the water service companies within the water groups about to be privatised are contained in the "Pathfinder Prospectus", a copy of which is available in the Library.

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

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: Under section 37 of the Water Act 1989, water undertakers have a duty to develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within their area. This duty is enforceable by the Secretary of State under section 20 of the Act. The Secretary of State also has powers under sections 131 and 132 of the Act to make orders, on application by the National Rivers Authority or by water undertakers, authorising the taking of steps to meet deficiencies in the supply of water arising from exceptional shortage of rain.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what target he has set for each of the water companies in England and Wales to achieve in order to reduce the percentage loss of water during the course of distribution; and by what date he requires them to reach that target.
  137
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: My right hon. Friend sets no such targets. However, all the water service companies within the water groups which are about to be privatised have programmes to reduce water losses and some have set specific targets, which are set out in the "Pathfinder Prospectus", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Rate Rebates
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the number of persons receiving rate rebate in(a) 1979 and (b) 1989 and the number of total persons who will either be (i) exempt from or (ii) paying less than the full community charge for their district.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested concerning rate rebates is shown in the table as follows:

  Estimated numbers receiving rate rebates—Great Britain

  Million

  1979–80

  3·065

  1989–90

  5·5

  Notes:

  1. Before 1982–83 assistance with rates was through the supplementary benefit scheme run by the Department and the rate rebate scheme run by the Department of the Environment. Assistance with housing costs was harmonised into a single scheme when housing benefit was introduced for some supplementary benefit claimants from November 1982. Full implementation for all claimants followed from April 1983. The information for 1979–80 represents the numbers receiving rate rebates through the rate rebate scheme only; the number receiving assistance through supplementary benefit is not available.

  2. The figure for 1989–90 includes community charge rebates in Scotland, which, in the case of couples, are counted as one rebate.

  Latest estimates are that 620,000 people in Great Britain will be exempt from the community charge and that between a quarter and a third of those liable for the full charge will receive community charge benefit.

ENERGY

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Electricity Council regarding the impact of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry on the level of electricity prices to the domestic consumer.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Electricity Council to discuss a range of subjects relating to the electricity industry.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the director-general of the Office of Electricity Regulation regarding the effect on consumer electricity prices of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend and I have had a number of meetings with the Director-General of Electricity Supply to discuss a range of subjects relating to the privatisation of the electricity industry.
  138
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy who will decide the price charged for electricity by the new nuclear company.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Electricity sale contracts will be for negotiation between the new company and the area boards. The contracts will be subject to Government approval.

  Hinkley Point C
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board about the public inquiry into the proposed Hinkley Point C pressurised water reactor nuclear power station.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has asked the CEGB to consider urgently what action it wishes to take with respect to its application for his consent to build a PWR station at Hinkley Point C in the light of his statement to the House on Thursday 9 November 1989 at columns 1175–76.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the public Exchequer contribution to the cost of decommissioning and reprocessing of the nuclear power stations of(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland under schedule 12 to the Electricity Act.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The way in which schedule 12 will be used will be reviewed in the light of the setting up of separate nuclear companies. However, the company holding the nuclear stations presently owned by the CEGB is expected to have a cash surplus from its first years of operation, and I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the position is expected to be similar there.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) on what date the Government recognised that nuclear power is more costly than power from fossil-fuelled generating stations; and what are the current respective estimated costs;

  (2) what was the source of the information that led his Department to recognise that nuclear power was more expensive than power from conventional stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: Advice given to me is confidential. However, the CEGB provided evidence to the Hinkley Point inquiry on 6 December 1988 about the comparative costs of a PWR and coal-fired capacity, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of(a) the percentage of electricity generation currently met by nuclear power and (b) the likely percentage in each year to the year 2000.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: According to the CEGB, the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear power in England and Wales in 1988–89 was 17·4. Future levels will depend upon a number of factors which cannot be forecast with precision.
  139
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the unprecedented guarantees on the costs of nuclear power stations which were being sought by National Power.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The details of my negotiations with National Power are confidential. It argued that it should receive extensive protection against financial risks arising from a variety of potential circumstances relating to the construction and operation of stations and to the statutory regime governing them.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy which Magnox nuclear power stations he estimates can have an extended life.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: This will he a matter for the nuclear company. The continuing operation of nuclear power stations has to be licensed by the nuclear installations inspectorate.

  CEGB
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is his latest estimate of the capital value of the assets scheduled to go to National Power, PowerGen and Gridco, respectively;

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the capital value of the nuclear power stations to be retained in the public sector.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is too early to assess the value of the assets assigned to each of the CEGB's successor companies: it will depend on a number of factors including the term of the power supply and other contracts which have yet to be included.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, if he will make a statement on the effect on employment at Central Electricity Generating Board, Barnwood, Gloucester, following his announcement on nuclear power on 9 November.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: This will be a matter for the CEGB and the management boards of National Power and the nuclear company.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Wakeham
  During the 1988–89 Session up to and including 13 November 1989, the number of questions asked of my Department was(a) 469 orals and (b) 1,204 written.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None. It is my policy to give an answer to all questions within my responsibility other than those where the answers can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a)
  140
  was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This information is a matter of public record but can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Department of Energy publishes energy statistics in "Energy Trends" each month, the "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics" each year and the annual report on the "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom"—the Brown Book. These publications are regularly reviewed and their contents rationalised in response to the Government's requirements for statistical information and the changing nature of the energy industry. There have been a number of changes made to the statistics collected and published in these booklets since 1979. However, reductions in the collection and publication of statistical series have been relatively few. These have included a reduction in the statistics for coal industry operations and finance; a reduction in the statistics of town gas manufacture; the discontinuation of statistics on two star petrol prices; and the rationalisation of coal stocks data and some electricity data to avoid duplication. In many cases the information remains available from alternative sources.

  Mr. John Collier
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much Mr. John Collier will be paid as chairman of the new nuclear company.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It has been agreed that Mr. Collier's salary will be £125,000 a year.

  AGRs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information on the costs of advance gas-cooled reactors become available after the July announcement of the decision not to privatise the Magnox stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  National Power informed us of indicative prices and outline contract terms it was seeking for the sale of electricity from the AGRs during confidential discussions. As I made clear in my statement of 9 November at columns 1175–76, these were unacceptable.

  Electricity Distribution
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the present amount of power being fed into the national grid from sources other than the
  141
  Central Electricity Generating Board, in total and as a percentage; and what is his estimate for future years of the amount and percentage that will be fed in from other than on Central Electricity Generating Board generating capacity.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]The CEGB informs me that during 1988–89 a total of 16·4 TWh was provided from outside sources, 6·6 per cent. of the total electricity supplied. The Government's proposals for privatisation will lead to greater competition in electricity generation in future years.

  Renewables (Special Tranche)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current state of progress on the 600MW special tranche of renewables announced by the right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) during the summer.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]As I made clear in my statement on 9 November, we will maintain the arrangements for the 600 MW tranche for renewables. These were spelt out in another place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 15 June.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any representations from the chairman designate of PowerGen about the division of assets between that company and National Power.

  Mr. Wakeham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: I meet the chairman-designate frequently to discuss a wide range of matters relating to electricity privatisation. These discussions are confidential.

  Employees in employment1 in the Leeds metropolitan district2

  September 1981

  September 1984

  September 1987

  Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 1980

  Divisions of SIC

  Number (thousand)

  Per cent.3

  Number (thousand)

  Per cent.3

  Number (thousand)

  Per cent.3

  Manufacturing industries

  2·4

  85·5

  28·3

  71·8

  24·4

  72·6

  24·6

  Male full-time

  60·3

  20·0

  50·9

  17·3

  51·9

  17·6

  part-time

  0·9

  0·3

  0·7

  0·2

  0·8

  0·3

  Female full-time

  18·8

  6·2

  15·8

  5·4

  16·0

  5·4

  part-time

  5·5

  1·8

  4·3

  1·5

  3·9

  1·3

  Service industries

  6·9

  187·4

  62·1

  196·1

  66·5

  197·6

  67·0

  Male full-time

  81·9

  27·1

  83·5

  28·3

  81·8

  27·8

  part-time

  7·7

  2·6

  9·4

  3·2

  9·8

  3·3

  Female full-time

  50·7

  16·8

  53·4

  18·1

  57·5

  19·5

  part-time

  47·0

  15·6

  49·8

  16·9

  48·5

  16·5

  All industries and services

  0·9

  301·7

  100·0

  294·7

  100·0

  294·7

  100·0

  Male full-time

  166·7

  55·2

  157·1

  53·3

  154·1

  52·3

  part-time

  8·9

  3·0

  10·6

  3·6

  10·8

  3·7

  Female full-time

  72·3

  24·0

  71·7

  24·3

  76·3

  25·9

  part-time

  53·9

  17·9

  55·3

  18·8

  53·4

  18·1

  1 Excludes the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's Forces; employees in temporary employment are included but are not separately identified in the census; part-time workers are defined as those working not more than 30 hours a week.

  2 The district is defined in terms of ward boundaries as at 1981.

  3 Percentage of all industries and services total.

  142

  Scottish Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals he has for the management of the Scottish nuclear power stations after vesting day in the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Lang
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House on 9 November by my right hon. and learned Friend.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what types of training are being undertaken by people on employment training in(a) engineering, (b) construction and (c) information technology industries; and how many places are available for each type.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employment training provides many types of training to meet the demands of local labour markets. Information about the numbers of places available in each training occupational category is held in every area office, but because of the local focus of the programme is not currently aggregated centrally.

  Employment (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons in the Leeds metropolitan district there were in(a) full-time employment, (b) part-time employment and (c) temporary employment for each year from 1979 (i) by gender and (ii) as a percentage of all employees in (x) manufacturing industry and (y) the service sector industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available employee estimates for the area are from censuses of employment taken in September 1981, September 1984 and September 1987 and are given in the table.

  Pay (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the maximum and minimum hourly basic rates of pay recorded in the Leeds office of the Manpower Services Commission from advertised posts in(a) the manufacturing sector and (b) the service sector.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information provided relates to vacancies available on Wednesday 8 November 1989 and is as follows:

  Hourly pay rates

  Manufacturing

  Services

  £

  years

  £

  years

  Minimum

  1·25

  16–20

  1·20

  16

  Maximum

  6·25

  —

  5·20

  —

  The table is based upon information from jobecentres in the Leeds local authority area. It excludes vacancies quoting only weekly, monthly or annual pay rates, which could not be adjusted to give reliable hourly equivalents.

  Disablement Assistance
  Mr, Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the contents of the draft document on the Government's internal review of employment assistance to disabled adults have been finalised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The review is at an advanced stage. The contents of the consultative document which will follow the review have not yet been finalised. However, the document will be published as soon as possible.

  The review is taking a comprehensive look at the framework for services for people with disabilities in the labour market in the 1990s.

  Sheltered Employment
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the major issues discussed by the Employment Department sheltered employment consultative group over the last three years and all major achievements of the group during that time.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a consultative body which exists to provide a forum for the exchange of views between the Department and organisations with an interest in the sheltered employment programme. The major issues discussed by the consultative group since 1986 have included:A review of the provision of equal opportunity policies within the programme leading to the development and dissemination of a model policy.
  Annual sheltered employment statements to the National Advisory Council for the Employment of Disabled People (NACEDP) 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88.

  Sheltered employment research.

  Numbers supported in the sheltered employment programme.

  Results of the sheltered placement scheme earnings survey.

  Net Exchequer costs of sheltered employment.

  NACEDP working party report on the review of the Tomlinson principles.

  Sheltered employment finance.

  Health and safety in the sheltered employment programme.

  Retention of approved workers with significantly
  144
  reduced output.

  Issues relating to the procurement of work, and the priority suppliers scheme.

  Evaluation of the sheltered placement scheme.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the membership of the Employment Department sheltered employment consultative group and, where applicable, the organisation represented by each member.

  Mr. Eggar
  The current membership of the sheltered employment consultative group is listed as follows:

  Organisation Represented:

  Member

  Department of Employment

  Mr. D. J. Sullivan (Chairman)

  Liaison Groups of Sheltered Workshop Managers

  Mr. M. J. Barratt Mr. P. E. Linton

  Local Authority Associations

  Associations of County Councils

  Councillor Mr. W. Minto

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Mr. J. Gallagher Councillor Mrs. J. Watts

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Mr. A. J. H. MacNish Mr. D. Morrison

  Remploy Ltd.

  Mr. M. Daymond Mr. T. A. True

  Trade Unions

  National League of the Blind and Disabled

  Mr. M. A. Barrett

  General and Municipal Workers Union

  Mrs. P. Turner

  Small Firms Service
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the Government's small firms service is able to offer expert advice on the particular problems of starting and running a small business which are faced by(a) women and (b) people with disabilities.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes. The small firms service offers information, advice and guidance on business to all groups of people.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  There were 1,342 oral and 1,600 written parliamentary questions asked of this Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  To provide the information in the form requested would involve manual scrutiny of some 3,000 replies to parliamentary questions; I regret, therefore, that it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  It is, however, this Department's practice to supply substantive answers to questions wherever possible.
  145
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has not refused to answer any parliamentary questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Brewing and Tobacco Industries
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the number of people employed in the brewing industry in England and Wales(a) at the latest date and (b) five years ago;

  (2) what was the number of people employed in the tobacco industry in England and Wales (a) at the latest date and (b) five years ago.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The only information available for these industries is the employees in employment estimates from the census of employment in 1984 and 1987, as follows:

  Employees in employment in England and Wales

  Brewing industry1 (thousand)

  Tobacco industry2 (thousand)

  September 1984

  47·7

  20·3

  September 1987

  38·4

  13·7

  1 Group 427 of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification.

  2 Group 429 of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification.

  Average Industrial Wage
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average industrial wage paid in the three most recent years for which figures are available, in Britain and in each EEC country.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information on a consistent basis as compiled by the Statistical Office of the European Communities is as follows:

  Average Gross Hourly Earnings of Manual Workers in Manufacturing Industries (1) in national currencies.

  April 1986

  April 1987

  April 1988

  Belgium (BFr)

  298

  304

  308

  Denmark (DKr)

  73·67

  80·78

  86·38

  Germany (DM)

  16·51

  17·40

  18·25

  Greece (Dr)

  347

  383

  451

  France (FFr)

  38·55

  40·17

  41·68

  Ireland (£IR)

  4·35

  4·59

  4·83

  Italy (2) (Lr)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  Luxembourg (LFr)

  335

  345

  n.a.

  Netherlands (Fl)

  17·00

  17·35

  n.a.

  Portugal (Esc)

  200

  239

  272

  Spain (Pts)

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  United Kingdom (£)

  3·86

  4·09

  4·38

  Notes:

  (1) NAC Classification of Manufacturing Industries

  (2)Latest available data for Italy are for October 1985, 7,802 Lira/hour

  n.a. not available

  Free Telephone Calls
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the cost of allowing everybody registered as seeking work in rural areas to be eligible for free telephone calls to their local jobcentre irrespective of the Telecom charges incurred.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information to enable an estimate to be made is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of people seeking work who are denied access to a local free telephone facility from their home village to the nearest jobcentre because the Telecom telephone line routing is so indirect as to make the call liable to long distance rates.

  Mr. Eggar
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he proposes to take to achieve a free telephone facility to the local jobcentre for everyone wishing to contact their local jobcentre.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no plans to introduce a national free phone facility into jobcentres, although this has been introduced in some parts of the country where access to the jobcentre may be difficult and costly.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on British Oxygen's refusal to continue to participate in employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]British Oxygen Company (BOC) is still participating in employment training by providing high-level training under the higher technical national training (HTNT) arrangements. The effect of BOC's decision not to renew its contract as a training manager under ET is the loss of only 30 places, none of which was filled at the time of the withdrawal, and which will be made good by increasing places with other providers in the area.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the most recent details of(a) the number of filled places on the 23 large company employment training schemes listed in the Official Report, 6 July, column 275, (b) any changes to the maximum number of places allocated for each of these schemes and (c) which of those schemes have since withdrawn from employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following table updates to 29 September 1989 the details of the 23 large company employment training schemes listed in the Official Report, 6 July, column 275.

  The "No. of places allocated" column shows, in brackets, the changes to the figures from 26 May 1989, as listed in the Official Report.

  None of the schemes listed has withdrawn from employment training.
  147

  Company

  Number of places allocated at 29 September 1989

  Places filled at 29 September 1989

  J. Jarvis and Sons

  1,310

  (-1,186)

  1,160

  J. Laing Construction

  2,181

  (+3)

  1,554

  Henry Boot Construction

  495

  (-74)

  222

  Invicta Training (Grand Metropolitan Training)

  1,105

  (+390)

  147

  Martin James

  650

  (+10)

  552

  Geo. Wimpey

  437

  (-110)

  404

  Mowlem

  305

  (-100)

  128

  Comet PLC

  354

  (-20)

  51

  Pilkington

  230

  (-40)

  181

  Ferranti

  152

  (-63)

  92

  Mill Garages Ltd.

  170

  —

  173

  Tower Radio Ltd.

  130

  (-120)

  93

  Portals Engineering Ltd.

  250

  —

  241

  Marley Extrusions Ltd.

  200

  —

  Nil

  Ryder Ltd.

  165

  (+15)

  194

  Team Greyfriars Ltd.

  380

  (+180)

  155

  John Lawrence Group

  100

  (-50)

  37

  ICI

  100

  —

  83

  Sumlock Business Service

  60

  (-30)

  36

  R and D Associates

  125

  —

  139

  Simon Engineering

  110

  —

  63

  Coastline Ltd.

  70

  —

  114

  Strategic Marketing (International Ltd.)

  100

  —

  88

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployment benefit claims offices in Wales have reduced the amount of time granted for first time claims interviews.

  Mr. Eggar
  An average time of 40 minutes is allowed for each new claim interview.

  Labour Statistics
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures for the borough of Eastleigh, Hampshire, and for the same period in each of the last six years; and, in each case, what percentage of the total available work force the unemployed represented.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The following information is available from the Library. The table shows the number of unemployed claimants in Eastleigh local authority district in September 1989 and in each September for the preceding six years. These figures are slightly affected by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and changes in benefit regulations in September 1988 affecting young people aged under 18.

  Percentage rates of unemployment are not calculated for local authority districts.

  Local Authority District of Eastleigh

  September

  Unemployed Claimants

  1983

  2,690

  1984

  2,892

  1985

  3,028

  1986

  3,247

  1987

  2,602

  1988

  1,657

  1989

  1,110

  148

  Employment and Training Schemes
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of all Government training schemes and special employment measures in 1979–80 and 1988–89; and what was the average number of participants in each year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: Records are kept on the basis for the standard financial year for accounting for Government expenditure, which runs from 1 April to 31 March.

  The Department of Employment Training Agency (ex-MSC, ex-Training Commission) spent the following on training schemes including special employment measures for the number of participants shown:

  £ million

  Participants

  1979–80

  524·3

  316,000

  1988–89

  2,764·3

  1,229,000

  Expenditure figures shown are at cash prices. Figures for 1979–80 are taken from the appropriation accounts, and for 1988–89 are provisional and unaudited.

  Number of "participants" is the number of people who entered training during the year. This includes a number of people who may have started for a second or subsequent time.

  The figures include the following programmes:

  Training for the Needs of Industry

  Training for the Needs of Individuals

  Improving Training Effectiveness and Efficiency

  Training Opportunities Scheme

  Skillcentre Training

  Community Programme

  Occupational Training

  Adult Training

  Industrial Training Organisations

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

  Non Advanced Further Education

  Youth Training Scheme

  Employment Training

  Scientific and Technical Equipment in Schools (STEPS)

  Special employment measures included in 1979–80

  Community Enterprise Programme

  149

  Youth Opportunities Programme

  Community Industry

  Job Creation Programme

  and all related administration costs net of receipts.

  YTS
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS places were available for employed status trainees in July 1987, 1988 and 1989; and how many of those places were filled by September of each year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]YTS places are not allocated according to employment status. The total numbers of young people in training on YTS at the end of September 1987, 1988 and 1989 are given below together with the percentage with employed status.

  Date

  Total in training

  Employed status

  Percentage of total

  End September 1989

  411,600

  107,000

  26

  End September 1988

  435,600

  75,000

  17

  End September 1987

  428,000

  47,000

  11

  Unemployment
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment among construction industry workers in England and Wales at the latest date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no analysis of the monthly unemployment count by occupation or industry. However, the labour force survey provides estimates of the previous industry category of unemployed people. The table shows the estimates of unemployed persons whose previous job was in the construction industry (as defined by ILO definitions), as estimated by the latest survey of 1988.

  Unemployed persons (ILO definitions) whose previous job was in the construction industry

  1988 Labour Force Survey

  Number of unemployed

  England

  128,000

  Wales

  12,000

  Merseyside Metropolitan County

  10,000

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many were unemployed in the Liverpool travel-to-work area at the latest date; and what was the figure five years ago.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]The information is available in the Library. In September 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the Liverpool 150
  travel-to-work area was 66,636, compared with 106,825 in September 1984, a fall of 40,189 or 37·6 per cent. over the past five years. The comparison is slightly affected by the change in compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and by the change in September 1988 due to the changes in benefit regulations affecting young people under 18 years of age.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for unemployment in(a) Merseyside and (b) Liverpool.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]The information is available in the Library. In September 1989, the latest available date, the number of unemployed claimants was 87,293 in the county of Merseyside and 66,636 in the Liverpool travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed in Liverpool under 21 years at the latest date; and what were the figures five years ago.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]The information requested is not available. In July 1989, the latest available date, the number of unemployed claimants aged 18 to 24 in the Liverpool travel-to-work area was 22,086, compared with 37,617 in July 1984, a fall of 15,531 or 41·3 per cent. The comparison is slightly affected by the change in compilation of the count in March 1986 to reduce over-recording and by the change in September 1988 due to the changes in benefit regulations affecting young people under 18 years of age.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the unemployed figure among workers in the Liverpool construction industry at the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: There is no analysis of the monthly unemployment count by occupation or industry. However, the labour force survey provides estimates of the previous industry category of unemployed people. The table shows the estimates of unemployed persons whose previous job was in the construction industry (as defined by ILO definitions), as estimated by the latest survey of 1988.

  Unemployed persons (ILO definitions) whose previous job was in the construction industry

  (1988 labour force survey)

  Number of unemployed

  England

  128,000

  Wales

  12,000

  Merseyside Metropolitan County

  10,000

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Bills
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish in the Official Report a list of (a) Government Bills and (b) private Members' Bills where the Committee stage was taken on the Floor of the House in each Session since 1970.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The list, excluding Consolidated Fund Bills and Finance Bills, is as follows:(Bills are listed in order of committal; Government Bills are asterisked)

  1970–71

  *National Insurance (Old Persons and Widows Pensions and Attendance Allowance)

  *International Monetary Fund

  *Education Handicapped Children

  *Fiji Independence

  *Harbours (Amendment)

  *Income and Corporation Taxes

  *Family Incomes Supplements

  *Town and County Planning Regulations (London) (Indemnity)

  *Expiring Laws (Continuance)

  *Air Corporations

  *Industrial Relations

  *Atomic Energy Authority

  *Guardianship of Minors

  Administration of Estates

  *Mr. Speaker King's Retirement

  *Vehicles Excise

  *Hydrocarbon Oil (Customs and Excise)

  *Coinage

  *Attachment of Earnings

  *National Savings Bank

  *Rent (Scotland)

  Dangerous Litter

  Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment)

  *Medicines

  *Housing

  *Hijacking

  *Diplomatic and Other Privileges

  *Statute Law (Repeals)

  1971–72

  *National Insurance Regulations (Validation)

  *Sierra Leone Republic

  *Island of Rockall

  *Airports Authority

  *Civil List

  *Ministerial and other Salaries

  *Electricity

  *Local Employment

  *Summer Time

  *Transport (Grants)

  *European Communities

  *Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement)

  *Northern Ireland

  Trade Descriptions

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries

  Carriage by Railway

  Sunday Cinema

  *Deposit of Poisonous Waste

  *Road Traffic

  *Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions)

  *Betting and Gaming Duties

  National Insurance (Amendment)

  Sunday Theatre (No. 2)

  Civil Evidence

  Defective Premises

  Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland)

  **Parliamentary and other Pensions

  *Sri Lanka Republic

  *Town and Country Planning (Scotland)

  *Contracts of Employment

  *Land Charges

  *National Debt

  152

  *Poisons

  1972–73

  *Counter Inflation (Temporary Provisions)

  *Northern Ireland (Financial Provisons)

  *Pensioners and Family Income Supplement Payments

  *Northern Ireland (Border Poll)

  *Costs in Criminal Cases

  Protection of Wrecks

  *Northern Ireland Assembly

  *Northern Ireland (Constitution)

  1973–74

  *Channel Tunnel (Initial Finance)

  *Fuel and Electricity (Control)

  *International Sugar Organisation

  *Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment)

  *Representation of the People

  *Pensions (Increase)

  *Charlwood and Horley

  1974

  *National Insurance

  *Lord High Commissioner (Church of Scotland)

  *Contingencies Fund

  *Ministers of the Crown

  *Northern Ireland

  *Road Traffic

  1974–75

  *Pensioners' Payments

  *National Theatre

  *Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)

  *Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland)

  *Referendum

  Hearing Aid Council (Extension)

  *Malta Republic

  *British Leyland

  1975–76

  *Northern Ireland (Loans)

  *Civil List

  *Drought

  *Endangered Species (Import and Export)

  *Industry (Amendment)

  *Moneylenders (Crown Agents)

  *OECD Support Fund

  Protection of Birds (Amendment)

  Solicitors (Scotland)

  *Seychelles

  *Trinidad and Tobago Republic

  *Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland)

  *Water Charges

  1976–77

  *Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries

  *National Insurance Surcharge

  *Fishery Limits

  *Scotland and Wales

  Roe Deer (Close Seasons)

  *Job Release

  *Representation of the People

  *Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit)

  *British Airways Board

  *Statute Law (Repeals)

  *New Towns

  *Restrictive Trade Practices

  *Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment)

  *Rent

  *Protection from Eviction

  *National Health Service

  1977–78

  *Pensioners' Payments

  *Scotland

  *Wales

  *Finance (Income Tax Reliefs)

  *European Assembly Elections

  *Commonwealth Development Corporation

  *Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

  *Education (Northern Ireland)

  153

  Protection of Children

  *Refuse Disposal (Amenity)

  Internationally Protected Persons

  Local Government Act 1974 (Amendment)

  Education (Northern Ireland)

  Theatres Trust (Scotland

  *Solomon Islands

  *Tuvalu

  *Oaths

  *Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment

  *House of Commons (Administration)

  *Parliamentary Pensions

  *Representation of the People

  *Adoption (Scotland)

  *National Health Service (Scotland)

  *Interpretation

  Import of Live Fish (Scotland)

  *Employment Protection (Consolidation)

  *Statute Law (Repeals)

  1978–79

  *House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats)

  Films

  *Price Commission (Amendment)

  *Vaccine Damage Payments

  Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons)

  *Confirmation to Small Estates (Scotland)

  *Customs and Excise Management

  *Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs)

  *Alcoholic Liquor Duties

  *Hydrocarbon Oil Duties

  *Matches and Mechanical Lighter Duties

  *Tobacco Products Duty

  *Excise Duties (Surcharges or Rebates)

  Licensing (Amendment)

  *Independent Broadcasting Authority

  Criminal Evidence

  *Capital Gains Tax

  *Agricultural Statistics

  *Wages Councils

  *Electricity (Scotland)

  *Administration of Justice (Emergency Provisions) (Scotland)

  *Legal Aid

  *Representation of the People

  *Arbitration

  *Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation)

  *Leasehold Reform

  *Carriage by Air and Road

  *Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas

  *Exchange Equalisation Account

  *International Monetary Fund

  *Prosecution of Offences

  1979–80

  *Kiribati

  *Pensioners' Payments and Social Security

  *European Assembly (Pay and Pensions)

  *European Communities (Greek Accession)

  *Shipbuilding

  *Southern Rhodesia

  Representation of the People

  *Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru (Miscellaneous Provisions)

  *Isle of Man

  *Justices of the Peace

  *Sale of Goods

  *Zimbabwe

  *Residential Homes

  *Child Care

  *Foster Children

  Import of Live Fish (England and Wales)

  *Reserve Forces

  Gaming (Amendment)

  *Highlands and Islands Air Services (Scotland)

  *Slaughter of Animals (Scotland)

  *New Hebrides

  *Consular Fees

  *Police Negotiating Board

  *National Health Service (Invalid Direction)

  154

  Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment)

  *Port of London (Financial Assistance)

  Licensing (Amendment) (No. 2)

  Coroners

  *Iran (Temporary Powers)

  *Gas

  *Sea Fish Industry

  *Magistrates' Courts

  *Education (Scotland)

  *Water (Scotland)

  *Solicitors (Scotland)

  *Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland)

  *Highways

  *Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions)

  *Overseas Development and Co-operation

  *Limitation

  *Statute Law Revision (Northern Ireland)

  *Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland)

  1980–81

  *European Assembly Elections

  *Social Security (Contributions)

  *Anguilla

  *Gas Levy

  *Redundancy Fund

  *Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers)

  *House of Commons Members' Fund and Parliamentary Pensions

  Disabled Persons (No. 2)

  Food and Drugs (Amendment)

  *English Industrial Estates Corporation

  *Film Levy Finance

  *National Film Finance Corporation

  *Public Passenger Vehicles

  *Judicial Pensions

  *Licensing (Alcohol, Education and Research)

  *Armed Forces

  *Statute Law (Repeals)

  *Transport Act 1962 (Amendment)

  *Local Government and Planning (Amendment)

  Matrimonial Homes and Property

  *Animal Health

  *Criminal Justice (Amendment)

  Licensing (Amendment)

  *Representation of the People

  *Belize

  *Friendly Societies

  *Betting and Gaming Duties

  *Acquisition of Land

  *Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations)

  *New Towns

  *Trustee Savings Banks

  *Broadcasting

  1981–82

  *Social Security (Contributions)

  *New Towns

  *Canada

  *Travel Concessions (London)

  *Agricultural Training Board

  *Industrial Training

  Copyright Act 1956 (Amendment)

  *Northern Ireland

  *Civil Aviation

  *Iron and Steel

  *Aviation Security

  *Insurance Companies

  *Industrial Development

  1982–83

  *Commonwealth Development Corporation

  *Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland)

  *National Insurance Surcharge

  *Lands Valuation Amendment (Scotland)

  *Pig Industry Levy

  *Representation of the People

  Licensing (Occasional Permissions)

  Level Crossings

  British Nationality (Falkland Islands)

  155

  *British Fishing Boats

  *Matrimonial Incomes

  *Mental Health

  *Pilotage

  *Social Security and Housing Benefits

  Coroners' Juries

  Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment)

  *Importation of Milk

  *Litter

  Road Traffic (Driving Licences)

  *County Courts (Penalties for Contempt)

  1983–84

  *Local Authorities (Expenditure Powers)

  *International Monetary Arrangements

  *Companies (Beneficial Interests)

  *Medical

  *Car Tax

  *Value Added Tax

  *Oil Taxation

  *Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange)

  *Town and Country Planning

  *Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland)

  *Pensions Commutation

  Road Traffic (Driving Instruction)

  Education (Amendment) (Scotland)

  *Local Government (Interim Provisions)

  *County Courts

  *Mental Health (Scotland)

  *Food

  *Public Health (Control of Disease)

  *Registered Homes

  *Dentists

  *Parliamentary Pensions etc

  *Roads (Scotland)

  *Capital Transfer Tax

  *Rent (Scotland)

  *Foster Children (Scotland)

  *Building

  1984–85

  *Elections (Northern Ireland)

  *Friendly Societies

  *Local Government

  *Representation of the People

  *Hong Kong

  *Brunei and Maldives

  *Town and Country Planning (Compensation)

  *London Regional Transport (Amendment)

  Hospital Complaints Procedure

  *Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions)

  *Companies

  *Company Securities (Insider Dealing)

  *Business Names

  *Interception of Communications

  *Cinemas

  Hill Farming

  Agricultural Training Board

  *Reserve Forces (Safeguard of Employment)

  Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment)

  Rent (Amendment)

  *Rating (Revaluation Rebates) (Scotland)

  *European Communities (Finance)

  *Further Education

  *Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc)

  Wildlife and Countryside (Service of Notices)

  *Housing

  *Housing Associations

  *Housing (Consequential Provisions)

  *Landlord and Tenant

  *Weights and Measures

  1985–86

  *Northern Ireland (Loans)

  *European Communities (Spanish and Portuguese Accession)

  *Education (Amendment)

  Marriage (Wales)

  *Australia

  Industrial Training

  156

  Protection of Military Remains

  Drainage Rates (Disabled Persons)

  Prevention of Oil Pollution

  Highways (Amendment)

  *Agricultural Holdings

  *Armed Forces

  Gaming (Amendment)

  Road Traffic Regulation (Parking)

  *Statute Law (Repeals)

  *European Communities (Amendment)

  *British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers)

  Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship)

  *British Council and Commonwealth Institute Superannuation

  *Insolvency

  *Company Directors Disqualification

  *Public Trustee and Administration of Funds

  *Family Law

  *Parliamentary Constituencies

  1986–87

  *Advance Petroleum Revenue Tax

  *Teachers' Pay and Conditions

  *Local Government Finance

  *Social Fund (Maternity and Funeral Expenses)

  Licensing (Restaurant Meals)

  Deer

  Gaming (Amendment)

  *Immigration (Carriers' Liability)

  *Pilotage

  *Norfolk and Suffolk Broads

  Prescriptions (Scotland)

  *Chevening Estate

  Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment)

  Billiards (Abolition of Restrictions)

  *Territorial Sea

  *Diplomatic and Consular Premises

  *Housing (Scotland)

  *Parliamentary and other Pensions

  *Consumer Protection

  *Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust

  1987–88

  *British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers)

  *Dartford-Thurrock Crossing

  *Income and Corporation Taxes

  Consumer Arbitration Agreements

  Malicious Communications

  Land Registration

  Companies (Audit Committees)

  *Rate Support Grants

  *Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions)

  *Road Traffic Offenders

  *Road Traffic

  1988–89

  *Petroleum Royalties (Relief) and Continental Shelf

  *Security Service

  *Official Secrets

  Control of Smoke Pollution

  Common Land (Rectification of Registers)

  International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration)

  Weights and Measures (Amendment)

  *Representation of the People

  Dangerous Dogs

  Licensing (Amendment)

  *Extradition

  *Continental Shelf

  *Prisons (Scotland)

  *Statute Law Repeals

  *Opticians

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the number of occasions in each of the parliamentary Sessions from 1970 to 1989 when (a) the House of Lords carried amendments to (i) private Members' Bills and (ii) Government Bills against the advice of the Government, (b) such amendments were accepted by the Government

  157
  in the House of Commons and (c) the amendments were reversed in the House of Commons and (1) the reversal was accepted by the House of Lords or (2) the House of Lords insisted on their amendments.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Members' Allowances
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list in pounds sterling the amount of(a) office costs allowance and (b) second home allowance unclaimed by hon. Members in the years 1988–89.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Estimate provision included in the House of Commons Members' salaries etc vote for(a) office costs allowance (OCA) and (b) additional costs allowance (ACA) in 1988–89 was £14,683,000 and £5,174,000 respectively.

  The total claimed and paid to Members in the year in respect of OCA was £14,568,579·36, and for ACA £5,384,650·53.

  It is not the practice to provide detailed listings of individual Members' claims.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Earthquakes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by location and date, the number of earthquakes that have been recorded during the last 10 years; on what seismographic scale; what damage was recorded; and what research is being carried out by his Department into earthquakes.

  Mr. Needham
  Northern Ireland has not recorded any earthquakes above magnitude 2·5 on the Richter scale in the last 10 years. Research into earthquakes in the United Kingdom is carried out by the British Geological Survey.

  Childhood Leukaemia
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by year to date, and by health authority, the number of incidences of childhood leukaemia that have been reported following the Chernobyl accident; and what was the reported number in 1980 and 1986.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Such data as are available are given in the table.

  Notification of leukaemia (0 to 14 years)

  1980

  1986

  1987

  Health and Social Services Boards

  Eastern

  5

  4

  4

  Northern

  4

  5

  2

  Southern

  1

  0

  7

  Western

  7

  2

  5

  NORTHERN IRELAND TOTAL

  17

  11

  18

  Mulder Milk Quota
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he hopes to redistribute to farmers in Northern Ireland the excess of the Mulder milk quota.
  158
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Additional milk quota of 15 million litres has been allocated to eligible Northern Ireland applicants under the terms of EC regulations 764/89 and 1033/89. There are no proposals for further allocations.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Cope
  A total of 310 oral and 1,207 written questions to date.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Cope
  Fifteen, up to and including 13 November 1989.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a)was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics and (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  Not available

  176

  Not separately recorded

  4

  Not centrally recorded

  8

  Not recorded in Government Statistics

  0

  Could only be provided at disproportionate cost

  148

  Total

  106

  These figures are for the 1988–89 Session up to 13 November 1989.

  1 30 questions were not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost, and these are counted in both figures.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Cope
  This information is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Cope
  A number of published statistical series have been discontinued since 1979. I will write to the hon. Member with details.

  AIDS
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have died from AIDS in the Province in the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  Over the past three years seven people in the Province are known to have died from causes associated with AIDS.
  159
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of people suffering from AIDS in the Province at the latest available date.

  Mr. Needham
  At 10 November 1989 a total of 14 people in the Province had been diagnosed as having AIDS.

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of employed persons in the tobacco industry in the Province(a) at the latest date and (b) five years ago.

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

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of people employed in the brewing industry in the Province(a) at the latest date and (b) five years ago.

  £s

  Area

  1971 to 1975–76

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total

  Antrim

  0

  9,580

  37,816

  105,477

  229,801

  56,425

  140,251

  57,635

  676,888

  801,512

  694,974

  1,200,805

  1,765,219

  2,057,950

  7,834,333

  Ards

  188,624

  89,785

  139,122

  104,992

  34,042

  154,051

  193,685

  669,361

  685,809

  383,993

  528,136

  906,417

  26,952

  486,418

  4,591,387

  Armagh

  165,908

  15,100

  72,598

  56,625

  54,105

  133,450

  58,864

  259,460

  388,217

  808,923

  891,808

  669,784

  1,419,643

  1,107,095

  6,101,580

  Ballymena

  161,834

  0

  159,855

  203,897

  111,245

  136,480

  99,145

  261,611

  488,179

  341,116

  606,839

  371,020

  470,322

  459,941

  3,871,484

  Ballymoney

  163,116

  0

  198,625

  57,022

  76,718

  197,981

  42,988

  253,047

  167,500

  199,125

  133,799

  169,506

  63,430

  82,264

  1,805,121

  Banbridge

  80,153

  0

  37,149

  126,698

  2,142

  87,120

  104,786

  281,146

  112,753

  184,133

  158,587

  152,826

  32,427

  198,883

  1,558,803

  Belfast

  444,600

  84,913

  81,136

  108,875

  411,005

  886,854

  956,761

  1,639,636

  2,841,035

  3,252,705

  3,735,499

  4,208,874

  5,616,889

  7,533,131

  32,781,913

  Carrickfergus

  246

  0

  18,700

  3,765

  56,640

  118,023

  106,507

  121,828

  496,208

  1,017,359

  647,375

  775,714

  864,202

  661,003

  4,887,570

  Castlereagh

  22,124

  8,400

  12,330

  104,750

  35,440

  7,114

  26,836

  57,875

  14,720

  21,288

  48,647

  237,888

  198,474

  22,292

  818,178

  Coleraine

  359,221

  203,221

  80,938

  67,966

  196,633

  42,348

  197,204

  149,260

  431,846

  772,899

  642,142

  366,859

  568,905

  262,504

  4,341,946

  Cookstown

  239,378

  111,985

  62,622

  166,924

  27,855

  127,901

  109,036

  594,213

  363,640

  243,892

  273,398

  432,877

  321,957

  864,895

  3,940,573

  Craigavon

  654,060

  82,807

  285,302

  419,958

  369,653

  611,366

  522,305

  710,203

  1,126,983

  1,505,009

  1,060,716

  1,790,986

  811,825

  1,181,633

  11,132,806

  Down

  260,951

  0

  112,338

  34,292

  643,708

  63,357

  334,604

  513,377

  712,364

  480,085

  1,236,379

  1,856,561

  2,994,709

  3,146,016

  12,388,705

  Dungannon

  951,152

  83,685

  556,340

  518,039

  477,487

  474,734

  342,954

  665,765

  754,598

  1,331,782

  2,139,553

  1,583,124

  1,063,023

  3,470,147

  14,412,383

  Fermanagh

  549,058

  92,411

  444,471

  154,055

  91,472

  142,564

  427,925

  449,192

  410,266

  780,131

  735,016

  696,707

  451,447

  883,918

  6,308,632

  Larne

  37,558

  0

  0

  41,300

  71,093

  1,935

  269,532

  160,322

  82,530

  557,229

  460,196

  179,518

  273,778

  388,358

  2,523,349

  Limavady

  82,719

  47,886

  85,831

  77,375

  268,923

  92,300

  62,907

  132,180

  137,411

  117,679

  156,664

  113,092

  84,198

  439,051

  1,898,216

  Lisburn

  179,240

  950

  131,282

  38,233

  65,683

  284,096

  399,943

  746,534

  892,865

  762,364

  653,929

  900,071

  348,185

  758,819

  6,162,194

  Londonderry

  543,911

  329,413

  136,510

  282,004

  98,283

  200,773

  97,438

  716,019

  962,674

  1,429,405

  2,281,324

  1,957,033

  2,909,413

  3,102,322

  15,046,522

  Magherafelt

  337,729

  37,935

  123,102

  280,029

  142,375

  14,268

  339,785

  237,116

  735,194

  1,025,341

  1,708,291

  601,612

  776,024

  709,057

  7,067,858

  Moyle

  19,048

  0

  3,480

  1,000

  54,627

  3,947

  26,895

  238,367

  7,850

  95,125

  46,500

  57,945

  40,000

  59,295

  654,079

  Newry and Mourne

  822,219

  275,098

  340,295

  857,879

  522,413

  531,091

  452,856

  470,406

  859,420

  1,113,683

  1,204,587

  989,030

  521,054

  2,108,969

  1,106,900

  Newtownabbey

  246,615

  33,378

  128,038

  316,133

  56,447

  230,643

  424,550

  676,779

  463,343

  449,301

  805,102

  1,251,537

  530,201

  865,495

  6,477,562

  North Down

  99,072

  15,188

  159,925

  234,801

  353,250

  127,676

  74,051

  624,829

  680,130

  875,626

  1,102,075

  528,942

  55,056

  625,674

  5,556,295

  Omagh

  423,429

  50,781

  214,085

  56,162

  166,920

  74,875

  54,948

  104,507

  271,828

  173,601

  635,061

  700,189

  408,723

  771,032

  4,106,141

  Strabane

  99,997

  3,325

  661,679

  27,750

  35,930

  103,748

  59,134

  464,772

  481,411

  302,415

  706,380

  247,425

  1,364,294

  563,094

  5,121,354

  Industrial Development Board.
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount of financial aid offered by the Industrial Development Board to companies in each district council area in Northern Ireland, in each of the years since 1982.

  £000s

  District Council Area

  1982–83 1 September 1982 —31 March 1983

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total

  Antrim

  207

  2,488

  1,977

  1,120

  5,339

  3,354

  6,773

  21,258

  Armagh

  NIL

  170

  1,066

  763

  2,174

  1,137

  599

  5,909

  Ballymena

  508

  7,632

  5,293

  2,049

  4,201

  8,324

  1,310

  29,317

  Ballymoney

  NIL

  NIL

  2,565

  718

  4,970

  1,330

  450

  10,033

  Banbridge

  270

  1,898

  493

  498

  1,325

  154

  775

  5,413

  Belfast

  2,273

  9,419

  18,228

  3,539

  19,838

  5,907

  13,288

  72,492

  Carrickfergus

  140

  402

  1,511

  225

  136

  641

  2,189

  5,244

  Castlereagh

  67

  1,054

  4,728

  2,196

  1,893

  1,315

  2,859

  14,112

  Coleraine

  851

  4,433

  5,547

  4,102

  1,065

  3,717

  1,182

  20,897

  Cookstown

  2,370

  136

  742

  265

  186

  NIL

  332

  4,031

  Craigavon

  5,133

  11,104

  18,341

  10,696

  9,728

  10,736

  4,511

  70,249

  Down

  49

  352

  1,328

  3,168

  1,163

  811

  3,830

  10,701

  North Down

  NIL

  671

  1,240

  872

  1,860

  1,380

  554

  6,577

  160
  Mr.Needam
  I will write to the hon.Member.

  Local Enterprise Development Unit
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount of financial aid offered by LEDU to companies in each district council area in Northern Ireland in each of the five years since the unit was formed.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: The amount of financial aid offered by LEDU since 1971 to companies, including individuals setting up in business for the first time, in each district council area is set out in the table. Cumulative figures only are available for the years 1971 to 1976.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 6 November 1989] The table details the selective financial assistance offered to and accepted by companies in each district council area.
  161

  District Council Area

  1982–83 1 September 1982 —31 March 1983

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Total

  Dungannon

  551

  737

  6,060

  1,945

  2,566

  4,453

  1,291

  17,603

  Fermanagh

  540

  2,538

  4,905

  1,023

  418

  4,691

  4,033

  18,148

  Larne

  NIL

  486

  16,122

  157

  9,774

  1,721

  3,763

  32,023

  Limavady

  1,890

  136

  644

  1,149

  1,294

  2,408

  NIL

  7,521

  Lisburn

  1,145

  2,046

  3,187

  2,728

  2,417

  1,205

  33,321

  46,049

  Derry

  954

  8,600

  11,989

  23,855

  4,358

  6,366

  7,877

  63,999

  Magherafelt

  NIL

  3,495

  1,706

  843

  655

  965

  1,075

  8,739

  Moyle

  NIL

  NIL

  NIL

  NIL

  678

  NIL

  NIL

  678

  Newtownabbey

  30,734

  3,315

  5,436

  3,978

  28,273

  10,176

  14,412

  96,324

  Newry and Mourne

  476

  5,526

  4,526

  1,793

  459

  7,278

  1,248

  21,306

  Ards

  325

  3,714

  6,335

  3,584

  1,045

  8,717

  1,105

  24,825

  Omagh

  NIL

  2,491

  1,848

  128

  878

  2,270

  NIL

  7,615

  Strabane

  NIL

  1,455

  7,135

  385

  2,587

  7,908

  NIL

  19,470

  Information in respect of research and development and marketing development grants is not readily available by district council area and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. However, annual figures of grants offered are:

  Research and development £'000s

  Marketing development £'000s

  1982–831

  1,900

  —

  1983–84

  7,000

  —

  1984–85

  6,100

  —

  1985–86

  6,400

  1,087

  1986–87

  8,300

  1,921

  1987–88

  7,800

  2,075

  1988–89

  7,800

  3,180

  1 1 September 1982 to 31 March 1983.

  Terrorism Suspects (Interviews)
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure tighter safeguards for persons in custody on suspicion of terrorist offences; and if he will introduce video and sound recording of all interviews of such persons and immediate access to legal advice.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 6 November 1989]: Existing arrangements and the scope for further safeguards, including the question of video and sound recording of interviews with terrorist suspects in custody, are kept under regular review. The rights of persons suspected of terrorist offences introduced under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 will be considered by Lord Colville in his review of the Emergency Provisions Acts. A guide to the exercise of the emergency powers by the security forces in Northern Ireland, including the detention and questioning of suspects in custody under the terrorism provisions, will be published shortly.

  Scheduled Offences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give separately for(a) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its Reserve, (b) the Ulster Defence Regiment and (c) the Regular Army, the number of members convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland, on and off duty, in each year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 8 November 1989]: I will write to the hon. Member.

  Arms Thefts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing how many legally held firearms were stolen during 1988 from(a) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, (b) the Ulster Defence Regiment, (c) the British Army, and (d) civilians; and if he will give a breakdown of weapons stolen as (i) bullet firing, (ii) shotguns, (iii) air weapons, and (iv) miscellaneous, including blank firing weapons, muzzle loading weapons and antique weapons.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 8 November 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Legally held firearms stolen during 1988

  RUC/RUCR

  UDR

  Regular Army

  Civilians

  Bullet firing

  9

  1

  4

  16

  Shotguns

  0

  0

  0

  54

  Air weapons/Miscellaneous1

  0

  0

  0

  13

  1Miscellaneous includes: Blank Firing Weapons, Muzzle Loading Weapons, Antique Weapons, Tranquiliser Guns and Starting Pistols.

  Rural Action Project
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when an announcement will be made anent the provision of core funding for the continuation of the Rural Action Project (Northern Ireland) as a rural development agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: It has now been agreed that Government will provide funding to allow the Rural Action Project to continue until the end of the current financial year. This will enable the Government to draw on the expertise and knowledge developed over the period of the project in tackling rural problems.

  TDG
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he received prior to his decision to refuse an application for £2 million in development grant by Messrs. TDG.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: None.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hand gun target shooters in Northern Ireland have been(a) granted a new firearms certificate and (b) granted a variation on a replacement weapon, in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The Chief Constable of the RUC has informed me that the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pistols held on firearms certificates in Northern Ireland are of a type and specification which are used for target shooting in(a) smallbore and (b) fullbore; and what were the numbers five and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The Chief Constable of the RUC has informed me that the number of pistols and revolvers held on firearm certificates is:

  Type

  At 31 October 1989

  At 31 December 1984

  Smallbore pistols/revolvers

  468

  478

  Fullbore pistols/revolvers

  509

  471

  No information is available to show the position at 31 December 1979.

  Pistol Target Shooting
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of people in Northern Ireland who practise the sport of pistol target shooting; what were the number five years ago and 10 years ago; and, of these, what is his estimate as to how many are involved in (i) smallbore and (ii) fullbore shooting.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The Chief Constable of the RUC has informed me that the current number of people claiming membership of authorised clubs for pistol target shooting is 1,433. It is not possible to differentiate between those people engaged in smallbore and those people engaged in fullbore pistol target shooting. However, there are 11 smallbore pistol shooting clubs and eight fullbore pistol shooting clubs. The information requested for earlier years is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The industrial development agencies (IDB and LEDU) are actively pursuing new job opportunities both from existing Northern Ireland companies and new inward investment. In the last financial year the agencies were particularly successful and achieved a record 10,657 jobs promoted with inward investment of 1,856 jobs. In addition, at August 1989, some 31,300 people were benefiting from special employment and training measures.
  164
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce unemployment among construction workers in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: Government expenditure is contributing substantially to the relatively high level of output by the Northern Ireland construction industry in which unemployment has fallen over the past three years.

  Coronary Disease
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the implications of the new general practitioner contract for preventive care against coronary disease.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The Government attach great inportance to the promotion of good health and prevention of ill health such as coronary heart disease. Patients will be offered more advice on how to avoid illness and simple checks on, for example, blood pressure will be available routinely as a result of the new contract for general medical practitioners which places greater emphasis on these aspects of health care. Family doctors will also be encouraged through the new remuneration system to provide clinics on the prevention of heart disease, smoking cessation, alcohol control and stress management.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incomes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the answer on incomes given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead of 11 July,Official Report, column 442 to include data for 1986, and if available, data for 1987.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No. The next edition of "Households Below Average Income: A Statistical Analysis", will cover the years 1981, 1985 and 1987. Publication is planned for around the turn of the year. Similar analysis for 1986 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to increase financial support over and above the income support limits announced in his recent upratings statement to allow elderly people in private residential and nursing homes to meet the full costs of their care.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The income support limits are set at levels which cover the fees in a majority of homes. It has never been the intention that social security payments should be available to cover whatever fees homes choose to charge, and we have no plans to change that.

  Sick Pay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish his latest estimates of(a) the number of employees covered by occupational sick pay

  165
  schemes, expressed also as a percentage of the total workforce, (b) the number of male employees covered by occupational sick pay schemes, expressed also as a percentage of the male workforce, and (c) the number of female employees covered by occupational sick pay schemes, expressed also as a percentage of the female workforce.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Out of a total work force of 22 million it is estimated that 20 million (91 per cent.) are covered by an occupational sick pay scheme. These comprise about 11 million men (90 per cent. of the male work force) and 9 million women (92 per cent. of the female work force). This information is based on the report on occupational sick pay schemes by IFF Research Ltd for the Department of Social Security, published in November 1988.

  Income Support (Seaham and Peterlee)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what number of people living within the Seaham and Peterlee Department of Social Security areas are in receipt of income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In August 1989 the income support live load totals in the Department's local offices at Peterlee and Seaham were 6,588 and 3,007 respectively.Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action, which included a number of cases where benefit payments had ceased but other action was continuing. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Disability Allowances
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Her Majesty's Government propose to undertake a full review of disability allowances.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 13 November at columns 51–52.

  Blind and Partially Sighted Students
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last met representatives from the Royal National Institute for the Blind to discuss the financial position of blind and partially sighted students and students loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Student loans are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  We have made clear our intention to preserve the benefit entitlement of certain students in vulnerable groups, including disabled students. The regulations to give effect to this will be subject to consultation.

  Widow's Pension
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time now taken to process a claim for a widow's pension; what is the target set by the Department for processing such claims; and what steps are being taken to speed up the process.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that information is not yet available on the average length of time taken to process a claim for widow's pension.

  The Department has recently reinforced its standing instructions to re-emphasise the need for urgency in dealing with all claims for widow's benefit.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his statement of 25 October,Official Report, column 844, he will explain the criteria he used in stating that 3,000 deaf-blind people should now qualify for mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  It is a broad estimate, derived from available information including representations made to us on behalf of this group, of the number of deaf-blind people within the age limits for mobility allowance who do not currently qualify for it.

  Department of Social Security Offices
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he intends to take to ensure that his Department's offices in England and Wales provide privacy for their clients both at the initial reception area and in interview rooms.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  All local offices have private interview rooms and are expected to publicise their existence. Offices are encouraged to install privacy screens at reception points and a rolling programme of installations is in hand.

  Income Support Claimants
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support listed at each local office in Birmingham have had their name and address sent by the local office to the community charge registration officer, at the latest convenient date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that groups of disabled people who do not qualify for existing benefits will be taken into account in his review of disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  We recently announced a range of measures which will extend social security provision to people who do not qualify for existing benefits. We will announce further proposals within the next few months, seeking to do more to help many disabled people who at present do not receive mobility allowance or attendance allowance.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will be taking evidence from independent experts in developing his proposals for disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 13 November at columns 51–52.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to consult disability organisations on his plans to reform the system of disability benefits;

  (2) whether he will be consulting disabled people and those organisations representing their interests when

  167
  drawing up his proposals for changing the balance and structure of social security provision for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the right 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. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward proposals following the OPCS report on disability, to improve the structure of disability benefits.

  Mr. Scott
  We will announce our proposals within the next few months.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of the disability benefits consortium.

  Mr. Scott
  On 4 May 1989.

  Personal Pension Schemes
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors account for the difference between the estimates of the revenue forgone by the national insurance fund in respect of minimum contributions to personal pension schemes in 1989–90 given in replies to the hon. Member for Derby, South on 17 July,Official Report, column 42, and 30 October, column 51.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My reply to the hon. Member of 30 October at column 51 provided the latest estimate of revenue forgone in respect of personal pensions—that is, the rebate together with the incentive. The reply given to the hon. Member on 17 July at column 42 related only to the cost of the rebate for personal pensions. Information about the cost of the incentive (covering both personal pension and occupational schemes) had been provided to her on 4 July at column 140. The direct comparison between the replies of 17 July and 30 October is that revenue foregone in respect of personal pensions in 1989–90 is now estimated to be £1,860 million instead of £2,050 million. The Government Actuary revised his figures in the light of new estimates about the numbers and earnings levels of those taking out a personal pension.

  National Insurance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the most recent estimate of the cost to the national insurance fund of the 2 per cent. inducement under section 7 of the Social Security Act 1986 in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and how much of the cost relates to payments in respect of 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90, respectively.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 30 October at column 51. The figure of £720 million relates to £350 million for 1987–88 and £370 million in 1988–89. The Government Actuary will be producing his latest estimates in his forthcoming report on the contributions rerating order.

  Benefits
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest date on which recipients of the following benefits will receive transitional addition(a)
  168
  invalid care allowance, (b) income support with the disability premium, (c) invalidity benefit, (d) income support with severe disability premium and (e) severe disablement allowance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Income support normal transitional protection reduces as the claimants total benefit income under the new scheme catches up with that under the former supplementary benefit scheme either at the annual uprating or through changes in circumstances. This protection is also lost on breaks in entitlement. The length of time for which individuals will need protection cannot be predicted, but after the annual uprating in April 1990 it is estimated that nearly 95 per cent. of all claimants will not require protection. Special transitional protection does not normally reduce at all; it is uprated annually.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since 1979 the Department has discontinued the collection and publication of statistics only in respect of those benefits which have either been abolished, for example:

  Death Grant

  Injury Benefit

  or replaced by new benefit arrangements such as:

  Supplementary Benefit (Income Support)

  Family Income Supplement (Family Credit)

  Non Contributory Invalidity Pension (Severe Disablement Allowance)

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89;

  (2) how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89;

  (3) how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information (a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided at disproportionate cost;

  (4) what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary (a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on the cost of replying to questions tabled to this Department or on questions receiving answers that information was not available or held centrally, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In the 1988–89 Session up to 8 November 442 oral and 2,273 written questions have been tabled for reply by this Department. None has been refused an answer, but some have been transferred to other Departments for reply. Less than 2 per cent., 45 in total, have received answers that the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that those entitled to claim disablement benefit under regulation 13 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1986 do so before it is too late;

  (2) when he decided to repeal regulation 13 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1986; on what date that decision was made public; and on what date it will be implemented;

  (3) whether he will amend the industrial injuries regulations to preserve the right of persons suffering from vibration white finger and other industrial diseases to claim disablement benefit where the onset of the disease occurred before 1 October 1986 and the person concerned was unable to make an earlier claim because of a justifiable lack of appropriate knowledge.

  Mr. Scott
  A decision in principle to repeal this regulation was made in December 1988. The amending regulation was laid before Parliament on 11 October 1989 and was to come into force on 1 November 1989. A second amending regulation, deleting this amendment, was laid and came into force on 1 October 1989. I took this action to allow time for further consideration of the matter. My final decision will take into account the representations I have received. Meanwhile, it is open to those who wish to do so to claim under regulation 13 of the 1986 regulations.

  Disablement Services
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends publishing the results of his Department's review of services for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 25 October a range of significant measures to give extra help for disabled people. We shall announce within the next few months further proposals to improve the balance and structure of disability benefits.

  Pensioners' Benefits
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners were expected to become entitled to income support and housing benefit, respectively, as a result of the changes in benefit rates on 9 October; and what information is available regarding the number who claimed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Our estimates were that 60,000 pensioners would newly qualify for income support as a result of the changes introduced in October, and that 40,000 pensioners would newly qualifiy for housing benefit.

  During the first three months of the publicity campaign, from July to September, some 140,000 income support awards were made for pensioners. This compares with a total of 49,300 awards in the previous three months. Similar information on housing benefit is not yet available.

  Pensions (EC)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a comparative table of standard basic pensions paid in the EEC countries to those who 170
  worked for national average wage, converted into European currency units by employing the puchasing power standard.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The details of how each EC member state calculates its principal state pension benefits are contained in the Department's annual publication, "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities", the 1989 issue of which is available in the Library.

  Most member states do not have a standard basic pension. Pensions are usually related to individual earnings; no EC average annual earnings figures are available from which it would be possible to provide the information requested.

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to implement the joint Department of Health/Department of Social Security review of the potential for relocating headquarters' work away from London.

  Mr. Newton
  I have accepted the findings of the review that a substantial amount of my Department's work in London should be relocated. Having carefully considered the review team's report, a copy of which is being placed in the Library, I have concluded that 650 posts, mostly relating to the work of the new benefits agency, which is planned to come into existence in April 1991, should be located in Leeds. The office of the chief adjudication officer, with its 150 posts currently located in Southampton, will also move to Leeds. I expect these moves to take place from late 1991 into 1992.

  I welcome the parallel announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health that some 1,000 posts from his Department's headquarters will also be moving to Leeds.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, pursuant to his statement of 25 October,Official Report, column 843, he will provide a breakdown of the 95,000 lone parents who will benefit from (a) the increase in the lone parents premium for housing benefit/community charge benefit and (b) the increase in the earnings disregard for lone parents claiming housing/community charge benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of gainers of housing benefit and community charge benefit from the increase in the lone parent premium announced for April 1990 is around 80,000. The majority of these also gain from the increase in the earnings disregard which will take effect in October 1990. In addition, we estimate that a further 15,000 lone parents will float on to benefit as a result of the increase in the earnings disregard.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish for the last 10 years the number of(a) unmarried and (b) separated mothers on social security, the numbers of children for which they are responsible and the numbers of mothers with maintenance payments in operation against the fathers of the children.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer Wednesday 8 November 1989]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  171

  Unmarried, separated and divorced mothers receiving Supplementary Benefit/Income Support; numbers of children and numbers with maintenance payments.

  Unmarried mothers

  Separated mothers

  Divorced mothers

  1979

  Claimants

  89,000

  101,000

  100,000

  Children

  116,000

  194,000

  194,000

  Claimants with maintenance payments

  29,000

  59,000

  71,000

  1980

  Claimants

  99,000

  99,000

  106,000

  Children

  130,000

  187,000

  199,000

  Claimants with maintenance payments

  33,000

  52,000

  71,000

  1981

  Claimants

  144,000

  120,000

  120,000

  Children

  147,000

  226,000

  220,000

  Claimants with maintenance payments

  33,000

  62,000

  80,000

  1982

  Claimants

  134,000

  134,000

  127,000

  Children

  177,000

  249,000

  234,000

  Claimants with maintenance payments

  34,000

  61,000

  79,000

  1983

  Claimants

  144,000

  145,000

  140,000

  Children

  186,000

  271,000

  248,000

  Claimants with maintenance payments

  32,000

  61,000

  76,000

  1984

  Claimants

  168,000

  157,000

  141,000

  Children

  228,000

  291,000

  247,000

  Claimants with maintenance payments

  35,000

  56,000

  69,000

  1986

  Claimants

  211,000

  176,000

  163,000

  Children

  282,000

  330,000

  287,000

  Claimants with maintenance payments

  37,000

  56,000

  74,000

  1987

  Claimants

  247,000

  176,000

  178,000

  Children

  334,000

  338,000

  311,000

  Claimants with maintenance payments

  38,000

  52,000

  73,000

  1988

  Claimants

  286,000

  191,000

  185,000

  Children

  400,000

  384,000

  335,000

  Claimants with maintenance payments

  35,000

  49,000

  73,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for mothers with children on Supplementary Benefit or Income Support. The table only includes mothers with children under age 16. It does not include the small number of families whose only dependent children were age 16 or over. This is because (until the passage of the Social Security Act 1989) liability of absent parents to maintain their children for Social Security purposes ended at age 16.

  2. Divorced mothers are included for completeness.

  3. The figures for claimants with maintenance payments include any case where there is a Court Order or voluntary payment whether for
  172
  mother or child.

  4. Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries for the relevant years. There was no Enquiry in 1985.

THE ARTS

  Drama in Wales
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will publish in the Official Report for (a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89 the percentage of Welsh Arts Council grants to drama in Wales which was allocated to (i) South Glamorgan and (ii) West Glamorgan.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested is as follows:

  South Glamorgan Per cent.

  West Glamorgan Per cent.

  1987–88

  33·5

  2·0

  1988–89

  33·4

  2·4

  Historically, the majority of Welsh drama companies has been based in South Glamorgan; the Welsh Arts Council's allocations reflect that. However, six of the 11 organisations based in South Glamorgan tour extensively outside the county. The percentages relate to grants to companies and take no account of smaller specific grants such as new writing commissions and touring assistance.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Office in 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  To date, the figures for this Session are as follows:

  Numbers

  Oral

  255

  Priority written

  109

  Ordinary written

  94

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  None.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Luce
  This information is a matter of public record in the columns of the Official Report.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the cost to his office of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Luce
  Based on the estimated average cost of answering oral and written questions, which currently stands at £90 per oral and £54 per written, the cost to date has been(a) £22,590 and (b) £10,530.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether his office has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Luce
  The Office of Arts and Libraries regularly collects statistics; some of these are available to the public.

SCOTLAND

  Inside Intelligence (Costs)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 18 October,Official Report, column 131–2, when he now expects to announce the full costs of the proceedings relating to "Inside Intelligence."

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Neither the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Lord Advocate knows when the accounts of expenses of other parties to the legal action The Lord Advocate v The Scotsman Publications and Others relating to the book "Inside Intelligence" will be taxed by the appropriate authorities.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board regarding the management and ownership of the nuclear power stations in Scotland after vesting day under the terms of the Electricity Act.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House of 9 November at col. 1184 by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Salmon Licensing
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from which bodies and individuals he has received representations on the draft proposals for a salmon dealers' licensing scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Representations have been sent or copied to this Department by the following:

  Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)

  Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards

  Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust Ltd.

  Atlantic Salmon Trust

  British Field Sports Society

  British Retailers Association

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Fishmongers' Company of City of London

  Garnock Valley Angling Protection Association

  Highlands and Islands Development Board

  Highland Regional Council

  Institute of Fisheries Management (Scottish Branch)

  National Farmers' Union of Scotland

  Nith District Salmon Fishery Board

  Nith Fishings Improvement Association

  Ross and Cromarty District Council

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Salmon and Trout Association (Scottish Council)

  Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland

  Scottish Anglers National Association

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation

  Scottish Landowners' Federation

  Scottish Salmon Farmers' Marketing Board Ltd.

  Scottish Salmon Growers Association Ltd.

  174

  Scottish Sports Council

  Shetland Fish Processors' Association

  Shetland Salmon Farmers' Association

  Shetland Smokehouse Ltd.

  Sutherland District Council

  Western Isles Islands Council

  Some other bodies have indicated an intention to submit comments which have not been received to date.

  All the representations we receive, and any relevant comments on the scheme proposed for England and Wales (which is designed to be compatible with the scheme proposed for Scotland) are being given full consideration. Final decisions on the schemes will be announced in due course.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  (a) 608 and (b) 2,646.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  (2) how many written Parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information (a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A total of 322, of which 297 were in the categories listed by the hon. Member; 92 where the information(a) was not available, 29 (b) not separately recorded, 144 (c) not centrally recorded, 13 (d) not recorded in Government statistics, and 19 (e) could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Such costs cannot be separated from the total administrative costs of my Department.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department intends to use the actual poll tax figures charged by local authorities in the current year in Scotland in calculating transitional poll tax relief; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The intention behind the proposed transitional relief scheme is to compensate personal community charge payers who have experienced significantly large increases in payments as
  175
  against their previous rate bill as a result of the change from domestic rates to the community charge. For this purpose charges estimated to exclude the effects of local authorities' decisions to expand services this year provide a more realistic basis for establishing entitlement to relief.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial provision he has allocated to cover the administrative cost of implementing the transitional poll tax relief scheme in Scotland including the recalculation of rebates.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that local authorities will be reimbursed for the reasonable costs they incur in administering the community charge transitional relief scheme. The costs will clearly depend upon the details of the scheme and we are at present discussing those with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been given to local authorities as to the issue of a seven-day notice prior to the issue of a 14-day notice to all those liable for the community charge who have not indicated in writing that they wish to pay by lump sum.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The requirements relating to the issue of seven and 14-day letters are set out in schedule 2 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps local authorities must take to remind community charge payers of their liability before invoking legal action for arrears or non-payment in the case of those paying by(a) monthly instalments and (b) other than monthly instalments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Paragraph 7(2) of schedule 2 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc (Scotland) Act 1987, as amended lists the requirements which a levying authority has to meet before the sheriff will on application grant a summary warrant authorising recovery of arrears of community charge. These include a requirement for the authority to have given written notice requiring paying of the amount due within a period of 14 days after the date of the giving of the notice. The levying authority can apply for a summary warrant in respect of any amount of community charge arrears. If, however, it wishes to recover the full annual amount from a person who is paying, or should be paying, by monthly instalments, they must first have followed the procedures set out in paragraph 4(9) of schedule 2 to the 1987 Act. This provides that the full amount becomes payable by such a person if they are three monthly payments in arrears, if they have been given written notice that failure to pay their arrears within seven days of the sending of the notice will lead to the full annual amount becoming payable, and if they have failed to pay their arrears within those seven days.

  AIDS
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have died from AIDS in Scotland in the last three years.
  176
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of deaths in Scotland from AIDS reported to the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit in each of the last three years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  12

  1988

  14

  11989

  27

  1To end October.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of people suffering from AIDS in Scotland at the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  According to the latest available returns made to the communicable diseases (Scotland) unit there were 62 AIDS cases in Scotland at 31 October 1989.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the number of people employed in the brewing industry(a) at the latest date and (b) five years ago;

  (2) what was the number of persons employed in the Scotch whisky industry (a) at the latest date and (b) five years ago.

  Mr. Lang
  The latest available information on employment in these industries in Scotland comes from the 1987 census of employment. The table shows for each industry the total number of employees in employment in September 1984 and September 1987.

  Employees in employment in Scotland

  Industry

  September 1984

  September 1987

  Spirit Distilling and Compounding

  16,900

  15,300

  Brewing and Malting

  4,200

  4,800

  Source:

  1984 Census of Employment.

  1987 Census of Employment.

  Tobacco Industry
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of employed persons in the tobacco industry in Scotland(a) at the latest date and (b) five years ago.

  Mr. Lang
  It is not possible to give information about the employment of the tobacco industry in Scotland without disclosing confidential information relating to individual firms.

  Rent Officers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library copies of guidance given to rent officers regarding their functions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government do not issue guidance to rent officers, who are statutorily independent and are therefore guided primarily by statute. In carrying out their functions relating to housing benefit subsidy, they are guided by the provisions of the Rent Officers (Additional Functions) (Scotland) Order 1989 (SI
  177
  1989 No. 578(S65), as amended by SI 1989 No. 1446(S116)). Detailed working arrangements are an internal matter for the rent registration service.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the number of appeals against determinations by local authorities so far in the current year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the period from 1 April to 31 October 1989, local authorities in Scotland requested redetermination in 74 cases for which rent officers had made a determination in connection with their functions relating to housing benefit subsidy.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the total numbers of determinations made by rent officers since 10 April.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the period from 1 April to 31 October 1989, rent officers in Scotland made 21,642 determinations in respect of rents referred to them by local authorities in connection with their functions relating to housing benefit subsidy.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of rent officers in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At 31 October 1989, there were 36 rent officers (including senior rent officers) employed in Scotland, and one vacant post.

  Students' Allowances
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is making for the payment of increased tuition fees for courses of higher education on behalf of students who receive awards under the students' allowances scheme.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government announced on 6 July 1989 that the maximum tuition fee for most courses for which awards are made under the students' allowances scheme will be £1,675 from the 1990–91 academic year. In order to ensure that public funds are not paid in advance of need, I have decided that tuition fees will be paid in termly instalments. The arrangements will replace the present systems, which vary among universities, grant-aided colleges and other establishments of higher education. Scottish universities and grant-aided colleges will be consulted about detailed arrangements for termly fee payments. The Universities Funding Council and the Scottish Education Department will adjust the profile of their recurrent grant instalments to institutions to take account of the change.

  A similar change will be made in the payment of increased fees to local authority further education colleges at a later date.

  I have also considered what fee levels would be appropriate for reimbursement through the students' allowances scheme for courses where a student spends at least a year away from an institution—for example, students on "thick" sandwich courses. In these cases, the costs to the institution are usually less during the year away than for the main part of the course. I have decided that the maximum fee reimbursed in such cases should be half the standard tuition fee.

  Hospices
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement defining Government policy on the funding of hospices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 November, 1989]: We regard the hospice movement as making an important contribution to health care. This valuable contribution is already acknowledged by the use made by some health boards of hospice services on a contractual basis and by the assistance given by other boards by way of financial support or provisions of supplies.

  We wish to develop and foster the co-operation that already exists and to encourage the creation of new and stronger links between the public sector and independent hospices. We wish particularly to ensure that the development of hospices, and the improvement and extension of their services is not hampered by lack of funds. For this purpose with effect from 1 April 1990 we shall be increasing significantly the financial support available to the hospice movement to ensure that all hospices obtain support from public funds of up to 50 per cent. of their running costs.

  We shall also be looking at other ways in which the hospice movement might be supported in the future in the light of the implementation of the policies which we have set out in our White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Raspberries
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what impact he assesses the proposed European Community trade measures with Poland and other eastern European states will have in the raspberry-growing area of Tayside.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: No final decisions have yet been taken on the proposed measures. I can assure my hon. Friend that the position of the raspberry growing area of Tayside is being taken into account in our consideration of this matter.

  Rhu Narrows
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reply to the letter sent in July from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North's constituent, Dr. Malcolm Kerr, regarding Rhu Narrows.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The proposal by the Property Services Agency, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, to widen Rhu Narrows adjacent to the Clyde submarine base at Faslane was advertised in the local press in July and persons who wished to express a view on the proposal were invited to write to my Department. The letter to which the hon. Member refers was one of a number of standard format letters received objecting to the proposal. It is not normal practice to reply individually to those who have made representations in this manner. Copies of the letter of 12 October announcing my right right hon. and learned Friend's decision to allow this development to proceed were sent to the major parties involved in the proposal and an announcement was made in the press.

  Dr. Kerr raised this matter with my Department on 2 November and a reply was issued on 8 November advising him of my right hon. and learned Friend's decision.

  Torness
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement about the anticipated availability of generating capacity at Torness power station during the coming winter;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the delay in completing the store for dismantling irradiated fuel at Torness power station.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: These are operational matters for the South of Scotland Electricity Board. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the delay in obtaining approval from the nuclear installations inspectorate for the refuelling equipment at Torness power station.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: Progress with the commissioning of refuelling equipment at Torness is regulated by a series of formal consents required under the conditions of the nuclear site licence issued by the nuclear installations inspectorate on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive.

  I am advised by the NII that consents for the early stages of commissioning have been granted, the inspectorate having satisfied itself on the safety case made by the South of Scotland Electricity Board. The SSEB is expected to apply shortly for consent to progress to the next stages which cover the loading of more fuel into the reactors.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. Ryder
  The Treasury is currently reviewing the location of its activities under the policy which my right hon. Friend the then Paymaster General announced on 31 March 1988 at c.610–11. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has that the liberalisation of trade and payments has led to an increase in the rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom; and if he will provide illustrative figures for the growth in gross domestic product less North sea oil and gas together with changes in the balance of payments.

  Mr. Ryder
  There is a vast economic literature on the benefits of free trade. I refer the hon. Gentleman to a recent survey article by J. David Richardson, published in the spring 1989 issue of OECD Economic Studies, and its extensive bibliography.

  Manufacturing Output (France and Italy)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the effect that membership of the ERM has had on manufacturing 180
  output in France and Italy; and if he will publish figures showing for each the average annual rate of growth in output in 1959 to 1969, 1969 to 1979 and 1979 to 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  ERM membership is only one of many possible influences on manufacturing output in France and Italy. Following is the further information requested on manufacturing output.

  Manufacturing output growth Average annual percentage change

  1960–69

  1969–79

  1979–88

  France

  5·8

  3·6

  0·4

  Italy

  7·3

  3·6

  1·5

  Federal Reserve Bank
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers the Federal Reserve Banks in the United States have which it is not proposed to accord to any comparable institution in the member states under the Delors proposals.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 2 November at columns 490–91 which made clear the Government's fundamental objection to the Delors approach beyond stage 1.

  Income Distribution
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report any evidence he has on income distribution per head in (a) the United States of America and (b) the European Commuity.

  Mr. Ryder
  Data on income distribution in the United States are published by the United States Department of Commerce in "Survey of Current Business" and "Statistical Abstract of the United States." Data on GDP per head in EC member states are published by the OECD in "Annual National Accounts Vol. 1"; and more recent estimates can be derived from the OECD's "Main Economic Indicators". Data on GDP per head in individual regions of member states are published by the CSO in Regional Trends.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish in the Official Report any evidence he has on the percentage change in income per head between states in the United States of America over approximately the past 30 years and as the national average.

  Mr. Ryder
  Data on personal income per head in the United States, both the national average and figures for individual states, are published by the United States Department of Commerce in "Survey of Current Business" and "Statistical Abstract of the United States".

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his latest estimate of the amount of the net United Kingdom contribution to the EEC budget and the actual figures for 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government's latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European
  181
  Community budget was published in the "Statement on the 1989 Community Budget" (Cm. 680, April 1989). The estimated outturn figure for 1988 was £1,362 million. A revised estimate of the United Kingdom's net payments to European Community institutions for the financial years 1989–90 to 1992–93 will be published in the forthcoming Autumn Statement.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government Departments, agencies or other bodies not currently using the Government data network he assesses as possible participators in the network.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government data network is available to all central Government Departments and agencies and, subject to approval of the GDN management board, their use of the network is actively encouraged.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on inviting tenders to the expansion of the network from companies not currently contributing to the Government data network.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government data network is provided under contract by Racal Data Networks Ltd. as a service and it is the responsibility of the contractor to tailor the network to meet user demands. The contract requires open systems connection to international standards to ensure that users have the widest possible choice of suppliers for systems which use GDN for connections. Those standards also give the contractor the widest choice of equipment and every inducement to use the most cost-effective technology as it becomes available. It is the intention that development of the network to carry value added data services will assure a competitive network in those services.

  Income Tax
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the loss of revenue in the fiscal year 1989–90 would be if the standard rate of income tax had been reduced to 20 per cent., all other tax rates and thresholds remaining unchanged; and, to make up that loss of revenue, at what income scale the threshold of the 40 per cent. higher rate tax would have to be set.

  Mr. Lilley
  The direct revenue cost in a full year, at 1989–90 income levels, of a 5p reduction in the basic rate of tax would be to reduce income tax receipts by £7·5 billion. This reduction would be approximately revenue-neutral if at the same time the basic rate limit was reduced from £20,700 taxable income to £9,000.

  Estimates exclude the effects on capital gains tax and possible behavioural effects. They are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Bingo Duty
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many visits were made to non-profit making clubs in connection with bingo duty by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise officers in each month of the current parliamentary Session.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: This question could be answered only at the cost of disproportionate time and effort.

  European Central Banks
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the number of individual members of the board of the European system of central banks as proposed in the Delors report.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The Delors report does not specify the number of individual members of the board of its proposed European system of central banks.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is envisaged that the decisions of the board of the European system of central banks as proposed in the Delors report will be made by means of weighted voting.

  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: The Delors report says that:
  "modalities of voting procedures would have to be provided for in the Treaty".

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what restrictions remain on the movement of capital and currencies within each European Economic Community nation which participates in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system; and what assurances have been given about their removal.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: A number of Community countries still retain some form of exchange control. The capital liberalisation directive requires most member states to remove all remaining restrictions on movements of capital within the Community by 1 July 1990. Ireland, Spain, Greece and Portugal are required to comply with the directive by the end of 1992, although the last two (which do not participate in the exchange rate mechanism) may be permitted a further extension to the end of 1995.

  Child Tax Allowance
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be(a) the administrative cost and (b) the total cost of a child tax allowance, assuming all taxpayers with children received an allowance equivalent to £7·25 per week.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: A child tax allowance of £1,510 per child, which would be worth about £7·25 a week to a basic rate taxpayer, would cost about £3¾ billion in a full year at 1989–90 levels of income. Administrative costs would depend on the details of the scheme.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Oil Seed Rape
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is undertaking or commissioning into developing less allergy-inducing strains of oil seed rape.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on 9 November (Official Report, column 782).
  183
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health on 8 November (Official Report, column 684–85).

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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 betwen oil seed rape and allergies, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health on 8 November (Official Report, col. 684–85).

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet completed his study of the potential for relocating his Ministry's offices outside London and the south-east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The detailed study my officials are carrying out on the potential for further relocation of headquarters' work is nearing completion, but it is too early to make a statement on the outcome.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the techniques and practices encompassed within the term food agricultural practice in his Department's guidance on nitrate sensitive areas.

  Mr. Curry
  The good nitrate practice advisory measures for the nitrate scheme areas are still being finalised, but they will concentrate on the need to avoid excessive or untimely applications of nitrogen fertiliser, including animal manure, and to minimise both the ploughing up of grassland and bare land during the autumn leaching period.

  Milk
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals to introduce legislation in respect of the milk marketing board.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no such plans at present.

  Brown Hares
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there are any regulations governing the farming of brown hares; and if there are any such breeding farms in the United Kingdom.
  184
  Mr. Curry
  As far as I know brown hares are not farmed in this country.

  Straw
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what encouragement and assistance his Department is giving to industry into researching and developing ways in which straw can be successfully incorporated into the manufacture of new products or utilised in other ways.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department funds research, totalling £706,000 in 1989–90, into alternative uses for straw, including work on incorporation techniques, straw handling and packaging equipment and use of straw as a fuel. In addition, grants are available for the supply and installation of straw burning fires and furnaces.

  Tourism
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, column 546, when he assumed responsibility for restaurants and the catering aspects of tourism.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend assumed responsibility within Government for the interests of the food industry which includes the non-residential catering sector on 24 July 1989, on his appointment as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment remains responsible for hotels and tourism, including the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department collects and publishes statistics on a wide range of topics. It regularly carries out reviews to ensure that statistics are relevant to current needs. As part of this process, some statistics which were collected and published in 1979 have been discontinued; some new ones have been collected and published and there have been improvements in others.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89;

  (2) how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89;

  (3) how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information (a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost;

  (4) what was the cost to his Ministry of answering parliamentary (a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Curry
  As of 13 November, 592 oral and 2,457 written questions had been asked of the Minister of
  185
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the 1988–89 parliamentary Session. The other information requested is not readily available.

  Irradiated Seafood
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any representations concerning the import of prawns and shell fish which have been irradiated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Allegations on this subject have been made on a number of occasions, but hard information is limited to one known case in 1985 that was dealt with by the Dover health authority.

  Lead-contaminated Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his veterinary service first received reports that cows were dying as a result of eating lead-contaminated feedstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Bovine carcases, aged six and nine months, were submitted to two veterinary investigation centres (Starcross, Devon and Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire) on Monday 30 October for post-mortem examination. As a result of these post-mortem examinations and subsequent laboratory tests, lead poisoning was diagnosed as the cause of death.

  Follow-up inquiries included the examination of environmental and feed samples and the presence of lead in the feed eaten by these two animals was confirmed by Sutton Bonington on 31 October and by Starcross on 1 November.

  At the same time our legal department was notified by the Dutch authorities of a danger to animal health due to a specified consignment of contaminated feed being exported to two companies in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have died since the end of September from the farms where lead-contaminated feed was used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 13 November 1989]: As of Monday 13 November 1989, lead poisoning has been diagnosed by the Veterinary Investigation Service on carcases and other material submitted from 12 premises where feed contaminated with lead has been fed. It is understood that 32 cattle have died on these premises.

DEFENCE

  Civil Service Dispersal
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Neubert
  The Ministry of Defence is currently examining a number of relocation possibilities, primarily from London and the south-east. The advantages of transferring defence work to the north-west, as to other regions, will continue to be borne in mind when evaluating potential candidates for relocation.

  Nuclear Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on delivery of the first United Kingdom Trident missile of the result of the recent test launches in the United States of America.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on 26 October 1989 column 560.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce his decision on a nuclear stand-off missile; which weapons are being considered; and what criteria will influence his decision.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are continuing to study both United States and French options. The details of the requirements which the studies are taking into account are classified. It is not yet possible to forecast when a decision may be taken.

  Conventional Arms
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the conventional armaments planning system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom has strongly supported the trial of the conventional armaments planning system from its outset early last year. The trial has recently been completed and the NATO conference of national armaments directors (CNAD) debated the results of this first trial cycle of the system at their meeting last month. The NATO council, reinforced by Ministers, will be meeting later this week to review the system and consider the recommendations put to it by the CNAD. It would not be appropriate to prejudge the outcome of that meeting.

  Battlefield Deception
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what importance he attaches to systems of battlefield deception; and what systems are available for deployment by the armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The importance of battlefield deception will vary according to the tactical circumstances at the time. A wide variety of methods and equipments are available to aid in this task.

  NATO Command and Control Systems
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has given consideration to the consequences for the Royal Air Force when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation air command and control system is implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The NATO air command and control system (ACCS) is intended to enhance NATO's air defences by establishing a co-ordinated and interoperable system for the command and control of all air operations in Allied Command Europe. The United Kingdom strongly supports this objective, to which the modernisa-tion of our air defence system under the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment and related programmes will make a major contribution.
  187
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the co-ordination of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command control and communications systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The requirements for NATO infrastructure-funded command control and communications systems, as in the case of other infrastructure expenditure, are stated and co-ordinated by the major NATO commanders. The United Kingdom plays a full part in the scrutiny and control of NATO infrastructure expenditure through the established NATO mechanisms.

  Air Defence Ground Environment System
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects that the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment system will be fully implemented; and what is the total cost of implementing it.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We expect that the IUKADGE will be fully operational in the early 1990s. The estimated cost of the complete programme at current prices is £500 million.

  Procurement
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the details of all procurement projects on which money has been spent in the last five years, but which have not directly resulted in equipment being adopted by the armed services.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  ROF, Blackburn
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that the arrangements for the physical security of the royal ordnance factory in Blackburn are sufficient to protect the work carried out on Ministry of Defence contracts.

  Mr. Neubert
  As stated in paragraph 22 of Cm. 9422, the Ministry of Defence continues to monitor security arrangements at all Royal Ordnance plc's factories, including Blackburn. For reasons of security I am not prepared to give details of those arrangements.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No record is kept of the cost of answering parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, an approximate record is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.
  188
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many written parliamentary questions to him in Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 10 December 1986 at columns 206–7.

  In 1987, two tables were discontinued in volume II of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, concerning student numbers in selected service colleges and information about service children's education. In volume II of the 1988 Statement on the Defence Estimates, data about the activities of the Meteorological Office were discontinued.

  Very little information is collected by the Ministry of Defence purely for statistical publications; most of the data which are published are based on internal administrative records. There has been no significant reduction in the collection of statistics since 1979.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, following the decision of the United States Defence Intelligence Agency to reduce its estimate of the Soviet Union stockpile of chemical weapon agent from 300,000 tonnes to less than 75,000 tonnes, he will make it his policy to review Her Majesty's Government's own assessment of this data; and if he will publish any resulting revision in the estimate in the Official Report.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government's position regarding the size of Soviet stocks of chemical weapons remains as expressed in paragraphs 219–220 of the Statement on Defence Estimates 1989 (Cm. 675–I).

  Loan Service Personnel
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1), pursuant to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, column 542, what were the ranks of those service personnel who served on loan or secondment in Chile in 1986;

  (2), pursuant to his answer of 7 November, Official Report, column 542, what are the numbers and ranks of those service personnel currently on loan or secondment in the Sudan.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Specific details about personnel serving on loan or secondment are generally in confidence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the country concerned.
  189
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, column 542, what are the ranks of those loan service personnel currently stationed in Belize.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Army

  Two Lieutenant Colonels

  Two Majors

  Two Warrant Officers

  Navy

  One Commander

  One Warrant Officer

  One Chief Petty Officer

  Air Force

  One Squadron Leader

  One Flight Lieutenant

  One Chief Technician

  This information updates that published in the eighth report of the House of Commons defence Committee (HC 624, Session 1987–88).

  Honduras
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any British service personnel have visited Honduras in an official capacity at any time in the last 10 years, excepting those personnel attached to the British embassy in Honduras.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Official visits by military personnel to Honduras are infrequent and have recently included port visits by the survey ships HMS Beagle and Fawn in late 1988 and early 1989, and a visit by military pipers in October 1988 for a charity festival.

  Pakistan
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any British service personnel have visited Pakistan in an official capacity at any time in the last 10 years, excepting those personnel attached to the British embassy in Islamabad.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are a range of official military contacts between the United Kingdom and Pakistan. Over the last 10 years these have included short-term advisory visits, ship visits, and deployments for adventurous training. More recently, we have assisted the United Nations in providing training in mine clearance and mine awareness for Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

  Numbers of abortions, England and Wales, 19881

  Performed to usual residents by all mentions of prostaglandins and all mentions of dilation and evacuation including dilation and curettage

  Gestation weeks

  Method of termination

  Total

  Under 9

  9 to 12

  13 to 19

  19 +

  2N/S

  All mentions of prostaglandins

  8,886

  35

  387

  6,806

  1,657

  1

  All mentions of dilation and evacuation including dilation and curettage

  3,052

  442

  692

  1,346

  572

  —

  1 Provisional.

  2 Not stated.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of doctors who undertake(a) more than 1,000, (b) more than 500 and (c) more than 100 abortions each year.

HEALTH

  Cytomegalovirus
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects tests to be available within the Shropshire health authority area for the foetal disease cytomegalovirus.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  For any screening programme the benefits conferred by antenatal screening must clearly, outweigh any risks, such as diagnosing a foetus as infected or likely to be seriously handicapped when it is not. Studies of the pattern of cytomegalovirus infection in relation to pregnancy suggest that screening is not appropriate, since there is no drug treatment available at present and the risk that an infected mother will have a seriously handicapped baby is low.

  I understand that in Shropshire a test is undertaken on newborn babies who show symptoms which may indicate that they have a virus. If the test indicates an abnormality, specimens are immediately sent to Manchester for further tests. Where necessary, babies are given the treatment they need without delay in Shropshire.

  Unborn Children (Pain)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department gives about the earliest point in its development when an unborn child will experience pain.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. We are advised that reflex response to touch does not of itself indicate perception of pain, which depends on brain activity. Reflex responses have been demonstrated from around the seventh gestational week.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions are undertaken by prostaglandins and dilation and evacuation; and at how many weeks' gestation these were undertaken.

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

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his reply of 1 November,Official Report, column 189–90, to the hon. Member for Liverpool,

  191
  Mossley Hill, if he will now list each of the countries of origin contained in the subsections described as "Other European" and "Rest of the world".

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is listed. Abortion data by the woman's country of origin are only given where the number of terminations exceeds 24.

  Europe

  Denmark and Greenland

  East Germany

  Finland

  Greece

  Hungary

  Iceland

  Netherlands

  Norway and Sweden

  Poland

  Turkey

  Yugoslavia

  Rest of World

  Argentina

  Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay

  Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland

  Brazil

  Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos and Philippines

  Canada

  China, Korea, Mongolia and Taiwan

  Commonwealth Africa (nos)

  Commonwealth Islands and Territories in South Atlantic/Antarctic

  Commonwealth Islands in Indian Ocean

  Cyprus

  Egypt

  Ethiopia, Somalia, Afars and Issas

  Foreign Africa (nos)

  Foreign Caribbean

  Foreign Central Africa

  Foreign Countries/Asia and Islands/Pacific

  Foreign West Africa (Muslim)

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Guyana

  Hong Kong

  India

  Iran

  Iraq

  Israel

  Japan

  Kenya

  Mainland Central America

  Malagasy Republic, Foreign Islands in Indian Ocean

  Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Other Arab States

  Other Commonwealth Countries and Islands in Pacific

  Other Commonwealth Islands in Caribbean

  Pakistan

  Remainder Tropical South America

  Sierra Leone

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Tanzania

  Tunisia

  Uganda

  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

  Zambia

  Life-saving Equipment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what audit systems he has devised to measure the level and effectiveness of provision of essential life-saving equipment; and if he will make a statement.
  192
  Mr. Freeman
  It is for individual health authorities to assess the level of requirement for, and to review the effectiveness of, life-saving equipment in hospitals.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the heat treatment of both imported and home-produced blood products as a means of preventing people with haemophilia from contracting HIV through their use.

  Mr. Freeman
  The efficacy of heat treatment of all kinds of blood products is continually being assessed by the manufacturers who submit their results to the licensing authority and in addition, are reviewed by the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government have considered applying the vaccine damage payments scheme to the position of people with haemophilia who have contracted HIV through the use of blood products prescribed by the National Health Service.

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

  Community Care
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will examine the implications of sections 1. 2, 3 and 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 for community care policy.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our proposals for the future of community care will make clear our intention that all local authorities should fully involve individual disabled people and carers in decisions which affect them. Concerning the implementation of remaining sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, 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 and to my reply to him on 10 November at column 825.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will direct regional and district health authorities not to proceed with closure of National Health Service institutions where adequate plans have not been made and where the local authorities concerned are not able to offer accommodation and services to the people accommodated in that National Health Service care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As has been made clear in previous statements, we will not approve the closure of NHS institutions unless it can be demonstrated that adequate alternatives for care have been developed. Procedures were outlined in the circular "Discharge of Patients from hospital" (HC(89)5) sent to all health and local authorities earlier this year. A copy has been placed in the Library. In addition, from 1 April, all district health authorities will be required to have instituted a "care programme" approach for the continuing care of mentally
  193
  ill people being treated in the community to ensure that their needs are assessed before discharge and arrangements are made to meet their needs.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local health authorities have not reached agreement with local authorities on plans for implementing "Care in the Community".

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities and local authorities are statutorily obliged to collaborate in the planning and development of community care services. Joint consultative committees are required to be set up in every DHA area, involving representatives of health and local authorities and the voluntary sector. Information is not held centrally on the specific form of agreements reached at local level on plans for community care, although health authorities are held to account for their performance as part of the annual review process.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government's White Paper on community care will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am pleased to be able to announce that our White Paper, "Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond" will be published on Thursday 16 November. It will set out the Government's proposals for the future organisation and management of community care, building on the broad conclusions which I outlined in my statement to the House on 12 July, following consideration of Sir Roy Griffiths' report. It will take account of discussions we have subsequently held with leading organisations and professional bodies in the community care field, including the voluntary sector, as well as the many views and responses we have received.

  NHS Funds
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the allocation of funds for National Health Service services in(a) Durham area health authority, (b) Sunderland area health authority, (c) Hartlepool area health authority, and (d) the Northern regional health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have received no recent representations on the allocation of funds to the Northern regional health authority or the three district health authorities named. Between 1978–79 and 1989–90 Northern region has received an estimated real terms growth of 33 per cent. compared with 30 per cent. for England as a whole. This includes an estimated real terms increase in 1989–90 of 1·9 per cent. compared to 1·6 per cent. for England as a whole. The allocation of funds to district health authorities is of course a matter solely for the regional health authority concerned.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the number of National Health Service dentists in(a) Durham area health authority, (b) Sunderland area health authority, and (c) Hartlepool area health authority, for each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is given in the tables.
  194

  General dental service dentists at 30 September each year1

  Cleveland FPC

  Durham FPC

  Sunderland FPC

  1979

  93

  95

  47

  1980

  93

  99

  46

  1981

  95

  102

  48

  1982

  102

  110

  55

  1983

  108

  117

  61

  1984

  120

  118

  61

  1985

  125

  127

  66

  1986

  131

  126

  61

  1987

  145

  136

  68

  1988

  146

  132

  67

  1 Because Family Practitioner Committee (FPC) boundaries are not coterminous with health Authority Boundaries this information on General Dental Service Dentists is not in the precise form requested. The figures for Cleveland FPC include Hartlepool HA, North Tees HA and South Tees HA and the figures for Durham FPC include Durham HA, North West Durham HA, South West Durham HA and Darlington HA.

  Hospital and community health service dental staff at 30 September each year

  Hartlepool Total staff

  Durham Total staff

  Sunderland Total staff

  1982

  6

  32

  26

  1983

  5

  28

  25

  1984

  5

  29

  27

  1985

  4

  26

  29

  1986

  2

  27

  31

  1987

  3

  27

  32

  1988

  4

  21

  24

  Notes:

  1. Figures include permanent paid, honorary and locum staff. From 1987 figures also include Agency Locum staff.

  2. Because of the 1982 NHS reorganisation consistent data for these DHAs are not available for earlier years.

  Homoeopathy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many homoeopathic beds are available in the north-west of England; and what plans he has to extend that provision.

  Mr. Freeman
  The use of complementary therapies, including homoepathy, is increasing in the NHS. There are, for example, homoeopathic clinic facilities in Manchester. However, the number of beds available in the north-west of England is not known centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has of the average cost of homoeopathic medicine per patient compared with the average cost of treating a patient in general practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not collect centrally patient-linked data on medicines which are prescribed. Subject only to the requirement of the selected list scheme, GPs are free to prescribe under the NHS any medicine, including homoeopathic medicines, which they consider to be clinically necessary for the treatment of their patients.

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the percentage vacancies of occupational therapists in each local social services authority area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Premature Births
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies were born in 1987 at(a) 24 weeks, (b) 25 weeks, (c) 26 weeks and (d) 27 weeks gestation; how many of these babies survived for one year; how many were born so handicapped as to require special care for the rest of their lives; and what is the estimated cost in medical care for these babies for the remainder of their lives.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available: information on gestation is not collected at live-birth registration.

  Smoking-related Diseases
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give an estimate of the amount of time lost through absenteeism of staff in the National Health Service due to smoking-related diseases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The monitoring of sickness absence is a matter for individual employing health authorities. We do not collect such detailed information centrally.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department has drawn up any guidelines for the implementation of section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986;

  (2) on what date he last met disability organisations to discuss section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986;

  (3) on what date he last met local authority associations to discuss section 7 of the Disabled Persons Act 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have not met any bodies specifically, to discuss, section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 but officials met representatives of the local authority associations in March 1989. The Government's position on implementation will be made clear in the White Paper on community care to be published shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  21 November 1988 to 9 November 1989 inclusive

  Oral

  Written

  House of Commons

  1841

  4,615

  House of Lords

  44

  78

  1Of this figure 86 received an oral answer and 755 received a written answer.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89..

  Mr. Freeman
  Hon. and right hon. Members will normally be referred to the responsible health or local authority for details of:

  —locally determined policies and priorities;

  —the applications locally of national priorities;

  —statistics etc. which are only available locally;

  196

  —operational cases where responsibility rests locally and where the local mechanisms for inquiry have not yet been exhausted.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Freeman
  Preparing replies for parliamentary questions is an integral part of the duties of officials of the Department. It is not possible to identify the time spent and thus the cost incurred in carrying out this particular duty.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Changes in statistical series are made when the Government's requirements for statistical information alter and in response to changes in the administrative systems on which some series are based. Certain changes have taken place on this basis since 1979. Such changes are documented in the Department's publications as required. For example, the effect of the implementation of the recommendations of the steering group on health services information (the Korner committee) was summarised in "Health Services Information—Changes to National Statistics" as well as in publications such as "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England 1989", copies of which are in the Library.

  The publication of certain booklets containing manpower statistics has been discontinued but these statistics are freely available in the Library and an ad hoc service provides information on demand in the most suitable form for the user. Other new booklets have been introduced in response to current demand.

  AIDS
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from AIDS in each of the last three years in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Deaths of people with AIDS in England and Wales which have been reported to the communicable disease surveillance centre, by year of death are:

  Number

  1986

  252

  1987

  316

  1988

  310

  11989

  240

  1 (to end September)

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of people suffering from AIDS in England and Wales at the latest date.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At the end of October 1989, a total of 1,229 people were reported to be suffering from AIDS in England and Wales.

  Sterilisation
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to district health authorities to provide for the sterilisation of women on social grounds; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the provision of social sterilisations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities are asked to make female sterilisation operations available as an NHS service both for medical reasons and on family planning grounds where, after full consultation, it is the method of choice. The priority which can be given to these operations generally is a matter for clinical judgment and local decision.

  Relocation of Work
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to implement his Department's review on the relocation of headquarters work.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have this morning announced that the whole of the work of the National Health Service management executive, involving some 1,000 posts, should be located in Leeds. I expect the first moves to begin in 1992. After that, the people in my Department responsible for the management of the NHS will be based in Leeds while those responsible for health policy and strategy will be based in London.

  I have today placed copies of the review team's report in the Library. I carefully considered the review team's report before reaching my decision which closely matches its recommendation that a substantial amount of my Department's headquarters work in London should be relocated.

  I welcome the parallel announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that some 800 posts in DSS are also moving to Leeds.

  Food Hygiene (Aircraft)
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the food hygiene regulations apply to aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970 apply to ground-based airline catering establishments. However, these regulations are not enforceable on aircraft. Under the Food Act 1984, enforcement officers' powers of entry to aircraft are restricted to entry for the purpose of inspecting imported food.

  I am announcing today that the Government will be seeking powers to update food legislation to extend food safety controls to food supplied to passengers on aircraft flying from British airports. We will be seeking similar powers to cover ships and oil and gas rigs within British territory. Primary legislation would not impose any specific obligations, but would permit regulations to be made setting out detailed requirements in the future. Any regulations which are made will be subject to consultation with interested organisations.

  These powers will be sought as part of a wider Bill dealing with food safety, which will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the patients waiting on the kidney transplant list for an organ have already had at least one transplanted organ; and how many are new additions.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: According to information provided by the United Kingdom transplant service, the number of United Kingdom patients waiting for a kidney transplant on 7 November 1989 was 3,506. Of this total 1,001 (or 29 per cent.) of patients had previously received a transplant.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of kidney transplants carried out by the individual regional health authorities during the past 12 months and, where possible, whether the transplants derived from kidney donors in their areas or as a result of United Kingdom transplant service.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 30 October 1989]: Information is not readily available in the precise form requested. The number of kidney transplants reported by NHS hospitals to the United Kingdom transplant service for 1988 is shown in the table. The total number of transplants performed within each regional health authority area is divided into those using organs retrieved by the transplanting centre, and those using organs imported from another retrieving centre either within or outside the region concerned.

  Regional Health Authority

  Transplants1

  Transplants2

  Total

  Northern

  71

  22

  93

  Yorkshire

  43

  35

  78

  Trent

  50

  49

  99

  East Anglia

  77

  5

  82

  North West Thames

  23

  35

  58

  North East Thames

  78

  63

  141

  South East Thames

  85

  86

  171

  South West Thames

  33

  17

  50

  Wessex

  56

  8

  64

  Oxford

  60

  9

  69

  South Western

  74

  33

  107

  West Midlands

  67

  61

  128

  Mersey

  34

  20

  54

  North Western

  97

  33

  130

  Special Health Authorities

  8

  15

  23

  1 Using organs retrieved by local centre

  2 Using organs imported from another centre

  Lobotomy and Leucotomy Operations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's current advice on the value of pre-frontal lobotomy and leucotomy operations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 November 1989]: The Department does not offer a view on the value or otherwise of particular surgical procedures. Decisions about treatment are for the professions involved. Psycho-surgical operations can only be undertaken when the special procedures of section 57 of the Mental Health Act 1983 have been followed.

  National Health Service Spending
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources he intends to commit to health education in 1990; and what was the proportion of the National Health Service budget spent on health education in(a) 1974, (b) 1979 and (c)

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 2 November 1989]: The information available relates to provision for the Health Education Authority and the Department's information services. This includes some items, for example nurse recuitment, which are not primarily educational. It excludes the expenditure on health education by regional health authorities, which is not identified separately. For the year ending 31 March 1990, current provision for the Health Education Authority and the Department's information services is about £41 million. As a proportion of total National Health Service expenditure, provision for these two programmes was:

  Year ending

  Percent.

  31 March 1974

  0·09

  31 March 1979

  0·07

  31 March 1984

  0·09

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Political Refugees
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many political refugees there are at present in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available on the total numbers of those who have been granted refugee status in the United Kingdom and are still living here. Available information on grants of refugee status is set out in an annual Home Office statistical bulletin (most recently "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom, 1988", issue 25/89) and in provisional quarterly figures supplied to UNHCR, copies of which are placed in the Library.

  Information on acceptances for settlement as refugees is published in the annual command paper (most recently "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, 1988' Cm 726, table 18), and in a quarterly statistical bulletin (most recently "Control of Immigration: Statistics —Second Quarter 1989", issue 31/89, table 3); copies of which are also in the Library.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries from which persons are seeking political refuge.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Available information on pending applications for refugee status, broken down by nationality, is set out in an annual Home Office statistically bulletin (most recently "Refugee Statistics United Kingdom, 1988" issue 25/89) and in provisional quarterly figures supplied to UNHCR, copies of which are placed in the Library.

  Wandsworth (Prison Officers' Accommodation)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of prison officers' accommodation at Wandsworth prison for which requests have been made by officers to purchase, as of 1 November.
  200
  Mr. Mellor
  A total of 132 requests have been received to purchase, under the Prison Department scheme for the discount sale of quarters, from officers at Wandsworth. Of these 95 relate to houses of which 60 sales have been completed, 23 are in the hands of solicitors, 10 offers have been made and two are with the district valuer. In addition, there are 37 applications to purchase flats or maisonettes, these being leasehold pose particular problems and it is also necessary to set up management companies to administer these properties after sale. The Treasury Solicitor, in liaison with two firms of private solicitors, is currently working on the documentation for this and the draft leases as necessary for the sale of individual flats. A further house at Wandsworth has been sold outside the discount sales scheme at full market value.

  ACPO (Europe Working Party)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what co-ordination there has been between his Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers working party on Europe; and whether any Government funding is granted to the working group.

  Mr. Waddington
  My officials have regular discussions with members of the association on European and other international policing matters. The Home Office has made a grant to the association of £191,000 in 1989–90 to meet the costs of its secretariat, which supports the association's activities in general.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of child abuse cases dealt with by magistrates and other courts in 1988–89; and in how many cases a guilty verdict was recorded.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is given in the table. It is only possible from the information held centrally to identify offences where the victim is known to be aged under 16. 1989 data are not yet available.

  Defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and found guilty1 at all courts for specific offences involving children under 16 England and Wales 1988

  Offence

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  Violence against the person

  Murder of infant under 1 year of age

  13

  1

  Infanticide

  1

  4

  Child Destruction

  2

  —

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  229

  165

  Abandoning child aged under 2 years

  —

  1

  Child abduction

  56

  26

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  320

  232

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  28

  31

  Indecent assault on a male aged under 16 years

  559

  460

  Indecent assault on a female aged under 16 years

  2,159

  1,650

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 13

  165

  135

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 16

  345

  340

  201

  Offence

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  Incest with girl under 13

  105

  104

  Inciting girl aged under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  3

  2

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl aged under 16 years

  10

  5

  Person responsible for girl aged under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution, etc.

  —

  1

  Abduction of unmarried girl aged under 16

  20

  8

  Gross indecency with children

  226

  246

  Summary offences

  Violence against the person

  Cruelty to, or neglect of, children

  2

  2

  1 Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences.

  Fire Brigades
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley,Official Report, 27 October 1988, column 321, whether he is satisfied with the progress being made on the preparation of fire brigade war plans; and if he will make a statement about the outcome of his review of this matter.

  Mr. John Patten
  Initial findings of the review indicated wide variations between brigades in the level of their war planning. Chief fire officers have been provided with information and guidance on their brigade plans, and encouraging progress has generally been made. Plans will continue to reviewed as part of the wider process of monitoring local authorities' civil defence preparedness.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any representations concerning the possible appointment of fire officers as members of the ad hoc working party on emergency communications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Yes. However, we are satisfied that relevant fire service interests can be adequately covered through the existing local authority staff membership of the working party and, where necessary, through direct contact with fire staff engaged on civil defence activities.

  Right of Arrest
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is Her Majesty's Government policy towards accepting the right of arrest on United Kingdom soil by United States Government law enforcement agents of prospective offenders, without due application for extradition, as has recently been endorsed by the United States Department of Justice.

  Mr. Waddington
  It is the Government's established policy strenuously to resist all attempts by any foreign country to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction within the United Kingdom.

  Bail
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of all those cases that come before magistrates courts where the police do not oppose bail are refused bail.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not available centrally on the number of cases where magistrates courts have remanded defendants in custody although the Crown Prosecution Service did not oppose the grant of bail. However, a sample drawn from two magistrates' courts in 1986 suggests that the proportion is very small, (about 2 per cent. of cases where no objection to bail was made).

  Drugs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates in gaols in England and Wales were disciplined for the possession and use of an unlawful drug during:(a) 1986, (b) 1987, (c) 1988 and (d) so far in 1989.

  Mr. Mellor
  Some 1,630 offences of possession of controlled drugs were punished in 1986, 1,540 in 1987 and 1,940 in 1988. Information for 1989 is not yet available.

  Crime Concern Initiative
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate the expenditure to date on his Crime Concern initiative.

  Mr. John Patten
  Crime Concern, the independent crime prevention organisation, received a Home Office grant-in-aid of £500,000 in 1988–89; the grant for the current year is £1 million.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress and achievements of the Crime Concern initiative.

  Mr. John Patten
  Since it was established in May 1988 Crime Concern has made encouraging progress in its central task of stimulating and supporting local crime prevention activity. So far the organisation has raised money through private sector sponsorship for various projects;
  launched, in close association with the Confederation of British Industry, a national business and crime initiative; held several conferences, including one for members of youth crime prevention panels;
  relaunched the magazine Good Neighbour as a means of communicating with members of Neighbourhood Watch; we look to them to do everything possible to promote the Neighbourhood Watch movement as a priority; and
  set up in Luton the first of a series of area crime reduction programmes involving co-operation between the police, local government and other agencies, and the private sector; I am informed that negotiations are under way in 15 other places.

  Lotteries
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the mailing of lottery tickets to United Kingdom residents and if he has any plans(a) to prohibit participation by British citizens in such lotteries or (b) to permit the promoters of British lotteries to compete on equal terms.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The promotion or conduct of public foreign lotteries in Great Britain is unlawful under the
  203
  Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. In breach of that Act, invitations to participate in a number of such lotteries have been mailed to addresses here. Between 1 January and 30 October 1989 inclusive, three hon. Members have asked us questions related to this postal activity, and we have received 11 letters from hon. Members and 10 from organisations or members of the public about it. These representations have variously complained about this unlawful activity, or suggested that its continuance might argue for the introduction of domestic, major lotteries. We are taking steps to deal with this postal activity.

  We do not propose that it should become an offence to participate in a foreign lottery. We keep the arguments for amending our law to allow domestic major lotteries under consideration.

  Interpreters
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many complaints have been lodged by Kurdish asylum seekers against interpreters; and how many interpreters have had in excess of three complaints lodged against them since May;

  (2) how many interpreters involved in Kurdish cases have been dismissed since 10 May;

  (3) how many investigations have been instituted against interpreters in Kurdish asylum cases since I May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not maintained on the basis of ethnic origin. Since May, 13 formal written complaints by Turkish asylum seekers or their representatives have been referred to immigration service headquarters. One interpreter has been the subject of more than three of these since May. Three investigations have been started, of which two have been concluded. No interpreters have been dismissed during this period, but two names have been removed from the list of casually-employed interpreters.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will state the procedures for the training of interpreters;

  (2) whether he will state the recruitment procedures for interpreters in immigration and asylum cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The recruitment of interpreters for permanent pensionable employment with the Home Office is conducted by the Civil Service Commission, which runs an open competition when a vacancy arises. In addition, fee-paid interpreting services are used by the immigration service on an ad hoc basis as required. Applicants are interviewed and assessed for the suitability by senior officers. No formal training is given, but interpreters are instructed to give a direct translation of questions put and answers given.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish the standing instructions for interpreters in immigration and asylum cases.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are no written instructions for interpreters. Interpreters are briefed by senior officers before their services are used by the immigration service. The conduct of interviews in which an interpreter is used is the responsibility of the interviewing officer.

  Political Asylum Unit
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many interviews between the political asylum unit at Harmondsworth and Kurdish asylum seekers have been cancelled since 1 May at the request of the political asylum unit; and how many of those interviewees were represented by solicitors or other advisers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is that of 1,500 interviews booked by the Harmondsworth interview unit, a total of 292 have so far been rescheduled, mostly at the request of the unit. A total of 184 interviewees were represented by solicitors or other advisers at the time the interview was rescheduled.

  Turkish Kurds
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Turkish Kurds have been held in detention in excess of(a) one month, (b) two months and (c) three months since I May; and of those held in detention in excess of each period, how many were subsequently granted exceptional leave to remain or political asylum.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not maintained on the basis of ethnic origin. In the period 1 May–30 October inclusive, 32 Turkish nationals were detained for longer than one month but less than two months; 23 were detained for longer than two months but less than three months; and 63 were detained for longer than three months. In all of these cases detainees were subsequently released from detention. Information is not readily available on the outcome of these cases.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Turkish Kurds were held in detention for 12 hours or more following a recommendation by group A that they be granted exceptional leave to remain or political asylum since 1 May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not maintained on the basis of ethnic origin. The other information is not readily available in the form requested. When the immigration service is notified of a decision by the refugee unit of the Home Office that an applicant should be given asylum or exceptional leave to remain, it arranges for the applicant's release from detention as soon as is practicable.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Turkish Kurds have been served with minded to refuse notices since 1 May; how many of these have subsequently been granted(a) exceptional leave to remain and (b) political asylum;

  (2) how many Turkish Kurds, refused leave to enter, were subsequently granted exceptional leave to remain or political asylum since 1 May 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A total of 294 of the Turkish nationals who sought asylum on entry since 1 May have been allowed to remain here on an exceptional basis and 78 have been recognised as refugees under the 1951 convention. Central records do not distinguish at what stage of the procedure leave to enter was granted and this could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where an application for political
  205
  asylum has been submitted by a Kurdish applicant already in the United Kingdom (a) how many have been granted exceptional leave to remain without interview and (b) how many have been granted political asylum for the periods (i) January 1987 to 1988, (ii) July 1988 to 31 December 1988 and (iii) 1 January 1989 to 1 November 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The readily available information is given in the following table:

  Grants of refugee status or of exceptional leave to Turkish nationals1 who applied for refugee status when already in the United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Granted refugee status

  Granted exceptional leave

  1987

  2

  3

  January 1988 to June 19882

  3

  5

  July 1988 to December 19882

  3

  15

  January 1989 to September 19892

  90

  280

  1The ethnic origin of asylum applicants is not recorded but the majority of Turkish applicants have stated that they are Kurds.

  2Provisional estimates; figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 = less than 3.

  Information on the number of these decisions which were made without interview is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Full information on decisions since September 1989 is not yet available.

  Immigration Officers (Training)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will outline the training given to immigration officers for interviewing asylum seekers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On appointment all immigration officers attend a basic training course which includes training and practice in interview techniques, followed by an intensive period of supervised interviewing of passengers, who may include asylum seekers. The course also includes lectures from officers of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and specialists from the refugee unit of the Home Office, and exercises in the handling of asylum applications. In addition instructions are issued from time to time on the handling of these cases.

  Guildford Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the West Midlands listing the West Midlands police officers who visited Guildford during the pub bombings investigations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Full records are no longer available to show the movements of west midlands police officers during the pub bombings investigations. Such records as exist do not show that any west midlands officer visited Guildford at that time.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, columns 39–40, if he will ask the Chief Constable of Surrey how many of the nine police officers referred to are still serving.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As the hon. Member will know from the answer given to him on 30 October, at columns 39–40,
  206
  most of the police records relating to the time of the Birmingham pub bombings have been destroyed. The nine police officers cannot therefore all be identified. Of the officers that have been identified, I understand that three are still serving.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, columns 39–40, whether normal liaison arrangements included the presence of Guildford police officers at interrogations conducted by West Midlands police with terrorist suspects.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Woolwich Bombing
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what liaison took place between officers of the West Midlands police force and the Metropolitan police following the Woolwich bombing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of any liaison which may have taken place between the two forces at that time are no longer available.

  Royal Ordnance Factory, Blackburn
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Lancashire on the circumstances in which police officers were called to the Royal Ordnance factory, Blackburn, following the detention there by civilian guards of a photographer from the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, on Thursday 9 November.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Crack Seizures
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police forces where there have been seizures of crack in the current year and the number of seizures in each area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures supplied by the police to the national drugs intelligence unit, which may not be complete, show that police forces made crack seizures as follows between 1 January and 31 October 1989:

  Force

  Number of seizures

  Greater Manchester

  7

  Merseyside

  5

  Lancashire

  1

  North Wales

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  South Yorkshire

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  West Midlands

  9

  Surrey

  2

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  Dorset

  1

  Metropolitan

  48

  Total

  87

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the value of the seizures of crack(a) in the current year (b) in 1988 and (c) in 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  The approximate street value of seizures of crack reported to the national drugs intelligence unit in the periods requested was as follows:
  207

  £

  1987

  800

  1988

  11,500

  11989

  21,000

  1 January to September.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mr. Waddington
  Readily available information within this Department relates to the number of questions answered by Home Office Ministers before the summer recess, and is as follows:

  558—Oral questions

  2,878—Written questions

  I understand that further information is available in the Library.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Waddington
  None, apart from those transferred to other Government Departments.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many written parliamentary questions to him in the parliamentary Session 1988–89 received answers that the information(a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics and (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Waddington
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mr. Waddington
  This information is not held centrally.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has discontinued(a) the collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Prison Chaplains
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has, in the context of the review of the organisation of the prison service, to ensure that the headquarters team of the prison chaplaincy can continue to exercise an appropriate supervisory role, on behalf of diocesan bishops, in regard to the ministry in prisons of full-time chaplains; how this church linkage will be reconciled or integrated with possible changes in the chaplains' operational accountability to governors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The report of the review of prison service organisation above establishment level accepts the case for 208
  retaining a chaplain general for the prison service, with a small team of staff providing professional support to chaplains and contributing to the development of policy on the role of chaplains in the service. There are no proposals for changing chaplains' operational accountability to governors.

  We have yet to reach decisions on the report's proposals. Any new organisational structure for the prison service would have to take account of the role of the relevant Church authorities in respect of the appointment and ministry of chaplains.

  Gun Clubs
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an announcement about the controls on gun clubs.

  Mr. Waddington
  Following the two recent tragic shooting incidents in the Greater Manchester police area I have considered carefully whether further steps need to be taken to tighten controls on gun clubs in the interest of public safety.

  Under section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 a member of a rifle or pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in his possession a firearm and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target practice. This exemption does not extend to club members who are involved in competition, for which a firearm certificate is required.

  Both of the recent shootings involved a person who had gained access to firearms and ammunition by signing on as a day member of a shooting club. Having reviewed the matter carefully, I am minded to decide that in future clubs operating day or temporary membership schemes shall no longer be approved by me. Any applicant for probationary membership of an approved club will be required to be sponsored by two full members of the club both of whom are firearm certificate holders.

  Probationary members when in possession of firearms or ammunition will be required to be constantly supervised by the range master or a full member of the club holding a firearm certificate. Probationary members, who must under the club's scheme remain probationers for at least six months, must also be given a course of instruction in the safe use of guns. No club should at any time have more probationary members than full members.

  These proposed arrangements reflect the high standards which already operate in many approved clubs. I have no wish to impose unreasonable burdens on genuine gun clubs. But the public have a right to expect that they should be operated with proper regard for public safety. The package of controls which I propose will help to ensure that only those genuinely interested in pursuing the sport will attain full membership. It will also help to exclude those interested in guns for the wrong reasons. It will also ensure that probationary members are properly selected, supervised and instructed.

  Approved gun clubs will continue to be encouraged to offer properly constituted probationary membership schemes for novice shooters. They will also be allowed to organise open days for those interested in taking up the sport, but those attending will not be allowed to possess, handle or use firearms. Full members of approved gun clubs will continue to be allowed to become visiting members of other approved clubs.
  209
  Section 15 of the 1988 Act which came into operation on 1 July 1989 gives the police new power to enter and inspect club premises. This power will be used to ensure that clubs are complying with the provisions of the section and any limitations in the Secretary of State's approval.

  Before reaching a final decision on these proposed new controls I am asking the Firearms Consultative Committee as a matter of urgency to let me have its views following its next meeting on 30 November.

  Electronic Monitoring
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use has so far been made of electronic monitoring as a condition of bail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The three pilot studies started according to schedule in the Nottingham, North Tyneside and Tower Bridge magistrates courts on, respectively, 14 August, 18 September and 23 October. As at 10 November we have received notification that 76 defendants in these areas had been recommended for consideration of the grant of bail subject to a condition of electronic monitoring; of these cases, 26 were granted bail by magistrates and Crown courts subject to this condition; of these, 14 are still on bail and being monitored. Electronic monitoring as a condition of bail is granted by the courts only in those cases where a defendant would otherwise have been remanded in custody. These cases therefore represent 26 defendants who, but for the availability of electronic monitoring, would have been remanded immediately in custody.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government have reached a conclusion on their response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others concerning detention under the prevention of terrorism legislation.

  Mr. Waddington
  The European Court of Human Rights held in the case of Brogan and others that the detention of the four applicants under schedule 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (now schedule 14 of the Act of 1989) constituted a breach of article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights because none of the applicants was brought "promptly" before a judicial authority. Under schedule 14 a person who is arrested on reasonable suspicion of involvement in acts of terrorism may be held by the police for a maximum of 48 hours during which period the necessity for continued detention must be reviewed regularly by a senior police officer not involved in the investigation. The Secretary of State may then extend that period of detention up to a maximum of a further five days before that person must either be released, or must be charged or excluded from a part or whole of the United Kingdom.

  Since the court delivered its judgment on 29 November 1988 the Government have been considering whether it would be possible to introduce a judicial element in the procedure for authorising extensions of detention in a way which would be compatible with the provisions of the convention and which would not weaken the effectiveness of their response to terrorism.
  210
  The Government believe that in the context of the continued threat to the United Kingdom, on a scale unknown elsewhere in Europe, posed by terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland the power to hold terrorist suspects for a period of up to seven years is essential. The continued necessity for this power—and the other powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act—is reviewed annually by both Houses of Parliament.

  Decisions to authorise the detention of terrorist suspects for periods beyond 48 hours may be, and often are, taken on the basis of information, the nature and source of which could not be revealed to a suspect or his legal adviser without serious risk to individuals assisting the police or the prospect of further valuable intelligence being lost. Any new procedure which avoided those dangers by allowing a court to make a decision on information not presented to the detainee or his legal advisor would represent a radical departure from the principles which govern judicial proceedings in this country and could serious affect public trust and confidence in the independence of the judiciary. The Government would be most reluctant to introduce any new procedure which could have this effect.

  The Government further believe that the present arrangements represent reasonable safeguards for the detained person. They guarantee to the suspect an early review of the continued need for his detention, provide that any extension of that detention beyond two days must be authorisied by the Secretary of State, and that he must be released, charged or excluded within a maximum of seven days from his arrest.

  The Government have concluded that a satisfactory procedure for the review of detention of terrorist suspects involving the judiciary has not been identified. The derogation notified on 23 December 1988 under article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights must and will therefore remain in place for as long as circumstances require. The derogation is limited to the powers under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to detain for up to seven days those suspected of involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

  Litter
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on(a) the frequency with which the £400 maximum fine has been imposed for littering under the Litter Act 1983 and (b) the average fine recorded for this offence.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 10 November 1989]: The information requested is in the table.

  Defendants found guilty and fined under the Litter Act 1963 England and Wales

  Year

  Total found guilty

  Total number fined

  Number fined £400

  Average fine (£)

  1986

  1,425

  1,390

  3

  35

  1987

  1,694

  1,628

  1

  35

  1988

  1,607

  1,555

  2

  40

  Police Officers (Fatalities)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the last 10 years have been killed in the course of carrying out duties involved in investigating drug-related crime.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 November 1989]: Twenty-five police officers in England and Wales died in the course of their duties as a result of murder or manslaughter between 1978 and 1988 inclusive. Details of the circumstances surrounding these deaths are not held centrally. It is not therefore possible to determine in which of the cases the officer was investigating an offence, and, where he or she was doing so, whether or not there was any form of drugs connection.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defendants have been electronically tagged since the scheme became operational; how many of these defendants have breached the conditions of their bail; and how many have experienced difficulty in obtaining benefit because of the length of their curfew.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 27 October 1989]: The information is given in the table.

  Persons electronically monitored1 in Home Office trials

  Trial area

  Number of defendants monitored

  Number breaching conditions2

  Nottingham

  13

  5

  North Tyneside

  39

  3

  Tower Bridge

  4

  1

  Total

  26

  9

  1 As at 10.00 am on 10 November 1989.

  2 Defendants breaching bail conditions or committing further offence.

  3 One of these persons has been monitored twice. Following arrest for breach of conditions a further recommendation for monitoring was accepted and conditions reimposed.

  Note: Two of the persons monitored in Nottingham have been sentenced to periods of imprisonment, one for 12 months and the other for 18 months. One person in north Tyneside had his bail conditions altered to exclude electronic monitoring.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is writing to the hon. Member about the question of eligibility for benefit.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Funding Councils
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the move of the two higher education funding councils to Bristol to be completed.

  Mr. Jackson
  The purpose-built accommodation in Bristol is expected to be completed at the end of June 1991. The funding councils aim is to complete relocation by September 1991.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any meetings arranged with Scottish university principals to discuss the effect of student loans upon Scottish four-year degree courses.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any meetings arranged with Scottish university principals to discuss the effect of student loans on Scottish four-year degree courses.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any meeting arranged with Scottish university principals to discuss the effect of student loans upon Scottish four-year degree courses.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the effects on disabled students of his plans to introduce top-up loans for students.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the effects on disabled students of his plans to introduce top-up loans for students.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how he plans to ensure that disabled students are not disadvantaged by the current proposals in the White Paper on top-up loans for students.

  Mr. Jackson
  The top-up loans scheme has been designed to apply to students in a variety of circumstances and those of disabled students have not been overlooked. They will remain eligible for the additional allowances available with the grant and will retain their entitlement to social security benefits. After their courses, they will be protected by the provisions for deferment of repayments and write-off of the debt if their income is low.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to amend the financial assumptions upon which the top-up loans White Paper is based.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 6 November at column 423.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he has had with the clearing banks concerning student loans.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what conclusions his discussions with the banks have reached with regard to the student loans scheme.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has recently received from the committee of London and Scottish clearing banks in relation to his proposals for student top-up loans; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what conclusions his discussions with the banks have reached with regard to the student loans scheme.
  213
  Mr. Jackson
  Constructive discussions are being held with a range of financial institutions. The House will be informed of the conclusions in due course.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information his Department holds regarding the debts of students in higher education in respect of financial loans.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information about student borrowing is contained in the 1986–87 survey of undergraduate income and expenditure conducted by Research Services Ltd. and the 1987–88 OPCS survey of mature students' incomings and outgoings. Copies of both are available in the Library.

  A more recent survey conducted by Research Services Ltd., the results of which are published today, shows that over the 1988–89 academic year young single students' average net borrowing in the form of overdrafts and commercial loans was £108. This is comparable to the 1986–87 figure of £110 (in 1989 prices).

  National Curriculum
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that there will be enough teachers to teach the national curriculum.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I expect there to be sufficient primary teachers for the delivery of the national curriculum, and sufficient secondary teachers overall, though there is a continuing need to address demand in some subjects. Since July 1986 the Government have spent over £50 million on a wide range of initiatives aimed both at producing more teachers and at improving the balance of subject capability of those already there. We shall continue and reinforce that action programme to ensure that we have the teachers we need.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what current financial provision has been made for the introduction of the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The cost of implementing the national curriculum will be met largely from the redirection of existing resources. However, support for some £130 million expenditure is available specifically to help the introduction of the national curriculum this financial year.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the total cost of implementing his policy on city technology colleges.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Total planned Government expenditure from the announcement of city technology colleges to the end of the financial year 1991–92 is £122·3 million. In addition sponsors have pledged contributions totalling over £43 million.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the expansion of the city technology college programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  214
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the contribution of city technology colleges to education in the inner city.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is too early yet to evaluate the impact of CTCs in detail. But it is already clear that they are immensely popular with parents and pupils; and the £43 million which has already been pledged by sponsors represents a great vote of confidence. With three CTCs now open, and eight more with firm opening dates, we are looking very carefully at how the good practices they are pioneering can best be disseminated.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, how much(a) public money and (b) private money from industry has been spent on each of the city technology colleges.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) on 20 October at col.264.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress so far made in establishing city technology colleges; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that all the first 20 are operational with the least possible delay.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the future of the city technology colleges programme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the present state of the city technology colleges programme.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the development of the city technology college programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The CTC programme continues to make excellent progress. Three CTCs are now open, only three years after the programme was announced. We have firm starting dates for a further eight colleges, in 1990 and 1991. In addition, other firms and individuals have indicated their commitment to major sponsorship. We shall continue to work with them towards the Government's target of 20 CTCs.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to extend the principle of city technology colleges to non-urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  CTCs are focusing on urban areas because it is there that the aspirations and expectations of pupils and parents are, generally, furthest from fulfilment. But our intention is that CTCs should be exemplars for all schools, including those in rural areas, and we shall look carefully at how their good practices can be effectively disseminated.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the response by parents to prospective city technology colleges in their areas.
  215
  Mr. Macgregor
  The response has been very good. For example, Kingshurst had over 1,200 inquiries for the 180 places available this year and Nottingham had over 300 applications for 165 places available this year.

  School Sport
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to expand the opportunities for sport in schools.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what initiatives he intends to take to improve the provision of school sport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what initiatives he intends to take to improve the provision of school sport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Sport is an important element in physical education, which is a foundation subject in the national curriculum. It will therefore form part of the curriculum for every pupil aged five to 16 in a maintained school. I hope to advise shortly on what machinery will be set up to advise on the national curriculum requirements for physical education and sport.

  Schools (Local Management)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from Norfolk headteachers about the implementation of local management of schools.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have had various discussions with headteachers in Norfolk about aspects of local management of schools, and some correspondence.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the funding of teachers' salaries through the local management initiative.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the implementation of local management of schools.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations has he received regarding local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from local education authorities, school governors, headteachers, teachers and parents. Very many of these have expressed heartening support for the key principles of local management of schools. There is, however, concern about the position of schools with high teaching staff costs when funding is determined mainly by pupil numbers. In response we have made clear that LEA's formulae may enhance the funding for small schools with above average salary costs, and that for larger schools in particular difficulties we would consider sympathetically proposals for an extended transition period to pure LMS formula funding.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many submissions from local education authorities concerning local management of schools he has approved; and if he will make a statement.
  216
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many submissions from local education authorities concerning local management of schools he has approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress being made in respect of the local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Each local education authority has now submitted its scheme for the local management of schools, and my right hon. Friend has already announced his intention to approve 8 of these schemes for introduction in April 1990.

  School Transport
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what moves his Department is taking to introduce seat belts into school transport and the use of warning lights and signs on the outside of school buses.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will be announcing later today plans to consult on draft regulations requiring the use of distinctive signs on school buses.

  I very much welcome this initiative. The Department of Education and Science will shortly be writing to all local education authorities encouraging them to do what they can in advance of the final regulations to speed up the introduction of warning signs. We shall also be collecting other examples of good practice in promoting safety on school transport, to help authorities collectively in their efforts to provide the safest possible service to all pupils.

  We are pressing European Community member states to agree common legislation on the fitting of seat belts on coaches and mini-buses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I believe that belts can and should be provided and should he worn when available.

  School Building
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the capital allocation for new school building will be announced.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend expects to be able to announce the annual capital guidelines for capital expenditure on education in 1990–91 to local education authorities shortly before the Christmas recess.

  Capital Expenditure (Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the provision of extra capital expenditure for Bradford to take account of expanding school roles.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Bradford local education authority has received an allocation for prescribed expenditure for 1989–90 and it is for the authority to decide how to use the resources available to it in the light of local needs and priorities. Annual capital guidelines for education expenditure in 1990–91 are currently being considered and my right hon. Friend expects to be in a position to announce these in December. In setting allocations my
  217
  right hon. Friend takes into account and gives priority to local education authority needs in areas of population growth.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his proposals for increasing the number of students in higher education over the next 20 years, including the funding arrangements for them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government's education policies have helped secure record participation. For the first time, there will be over 1 million students in higher education this autumn. We are confident that participation will increase yet further, and we stand by our commitment to ensure that higher education continues to receive an appropriate share of public expenditure.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account he has taken of Her Majesty's inspectorate's observations about the effective use of his Department's expenditure as recorded in paragraph 71 of Her Majesty's inspectorate's report "The Lower Attaining Pupils' Programme 1982–88"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 7 November at cols.585–86.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice his Department has issued to local education authorities on how to increase teachers' sensitivity to the possibility of child abuse and on how to make an appropriate response to any suspicions.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department issued in July last year a circular entitled "Working Together for the Protection of Children from Abuse: Procedures Within the Education Service", which is designed to help local education authorities and schools to increase the effectiveness of their efforts to prevent and deal with child abuse. The circular includes advice regarding possible signs of abuse, and on action which should be taken within the education service to enable cases of suspected or identified abuse to be properly considered and pursued.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will organise a conference of education authorities which have followed training programmes concerning child abuse; how many have held training sessions in the last 12 months; and how many advice notices have been issued by his department to encourage such training courses;

  (2) what information he has on how many educational authorities have organised special courses which would help teachers recognise signs of child abuse.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department's circular "Working Together for the Protection of Children From Abuse", issued in July 1988, included the recommendation that local education authorities should develop arrangements for the appropriate in-service training of teachers and other staff on child abuse matters.
  218
  The Department has asked all local education authorities to report by the end of this month on the action they have taken to give effect to this and the other recommendations in the circular. These reports should provide information regarding the number of local education authorities which have arranged training provision for teachers and other staff.

  The Department has no current plans to organise a conference of local education authorities which have followed training programmes concerning child abuse.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what review he has undertaken of the position of A-levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what review he has undertaken of the position of A-levels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend received advice in July from the School Examinations and Assessment Council on the future development of the advanced level examining system, recommending, and seeking approval for, a programme of work to develop general principles to govern A-level and AS examinations. These principles should provide controls on standards, syllabus development and progression from GCSE, together with a mechanism for rationalising and improving the quality of syllabuses. SEAC's advice also related to the promotion of AS examinations.

  My right hon. Friend accepted that advice, and a copy of the exchange of correspondence has been placed in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend expects to write very shortly on some further aspects of SEAC's advice, on the relationship between A-level and AS syllabuses and wider issues of education and training for all young people aged to 19.

  The work now put in hand will enable the existing structure of A-level and AS examinations to evolve to meet changing needs, and, in particular, both to encourage movement towards a broader curriculum for advanced-level students and to secure future progression from the national curriculum into advanced-level study.

  Achievement Records
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to develop the records of achievement initiative.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to develop the records of achievement initiative.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Draft regulations and an accompanying circular on information to parents on their child's achievements in the national curriculum subjects and otherwise in public examinations are to be issued shortly. These will set a minimum statutory context against which records of achievement may be further developed, subject to local priorities and resources.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he has taken to ensure children with special educational needs receive a broad and balanced curriculum appropriate to their ability under the national curriculum.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he has taken to ensure children with special educational needs receive a broad and balanced curriculum, appropriate to their ability under the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  National curriculum attainment targets and programmes of study are being designed to allow access by the vast majority of pupils. In a small minority of cases some pupils with special educational needs may nevertheless need to have the requirements modified or lifted to meet their particular needs and abilities. However, even where exceptions have been made, maintained schools are still under a duty to ensure that the curricula they offer pupils are balanced and broadly based, in accordance with the requirements of section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of provision for children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The responsibility for making appropriate provision for children with special educational needs lies with each individual local education authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 6 November the Government's proposals for the local authority grant settlement in 1990–91, including spending on education. Those proposals allow for increased spending per pupil in 1990–91 in maintained special schools relative to that assumed within the comparable total for 1989–90. Expenditure on pupils with special educational needs in ordinary schools cannot be separately identified.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Grant Maintained Schools Trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman and officials of the Grant Maintained Schools Trust on 17 October when he attended a dinner at a conference organised by the trust for teachers and governors in grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications he has received from schools seeking to opt out of direct local authority management and control; how many have been approved; and how many schoolchildren are affected.

  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications for grant-maintained status he has granted; and how many he expects to grant in the immediate future.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have sought grant-maintained status.
  220
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have opted for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now applied to opt out of local education authority control; and in how many cases he has given his consent.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  To date 50 schools have voted in favour of applying for grant-maintained status, of which 47 have so far published proposals. My right hon. Friend has taken decisions on 36 cases, of which 28 have been approved for grant-maintained status. Decisions on the remaining proposals will be taken on their merits in due course. Some 12,300 school-children are attending schools which became grant-maintained in September; the total number attending schools so far approved to become grant-maintained is 19,000.

  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in Cleveland have begun proceedings to opt out of the local education authority control.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I am not aware of any school in the Cleveland area having begun proceedings to opt out of local education authority control.

  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what formula his Department will use for central funding of schools which choose to opt out; what representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what formula his Department will use in deciding the funding of schools which choose to opt out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The financial arrangements for grant-maintained schools were set out in the Education (Grant-Maintained Schools) (Finance) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989/1287). These arrangements were explained in the Department's circular No. 21/89, issued on 23 August 1989, copies of which have been placed in the Library. A number of representations were received from schools, local education authorities and others in response to the Department's earlier consultation paper on these matters, issued on 10 March, and these were taken into account in preparing the regulations and circular mentioned earlier.

  Health Education
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to announce the education support grant allocations for local education authorities' preventive health education work.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is considering the bids submitted for this and other education support grant activities in 1990–91, and intends to announce allocations around the turn of the year.

  Human Genome Organisation
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what contribution he plans to make to the Human Genome Organisation in 1989–90 and in each of the following four financial years.
  221
  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on 6 November at col.422.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the clinical and scientific importance of the research objectives of the Human Genome Organisation.

  Mr. Jackson
  The target of obtaining a complete map —and eventually perhaps a complete nucleotide sequence —of the human genome is supported by the Medical Research Council; and my right hon. Friend allocated funds earlier in the year for the council's activities in this field, which will link with related international research. The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) is an independent international body which includes a number of senior United Kingdom scientists. Neither the Department nor the Medical Research Council has made an assessment specifically of the research objectives of HUGO.

  Higher Education Colleges
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to conclude consideration of the criteria for conferring polytechnic status upon colleges of higher education.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has asked for views by the end of November on the criteria proposed by the PCFC for designating additional polytechnics. He will wish to consider these views carefully before announcing his final decisions.

  Education Inspectors and Advisers
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to bring to the attention of local education authorities the report by the Audit Commission, "Assuring Quality and Education: The Role of Local Education Authority Inspectors and Advisers."

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to bring to the attention of local education authorities the report by the Audit Commission, "Assuring Quality and Education: The Role of Local Education Authority Inspectors and Advisers".

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Audit Commission has already sent copies of the report to the local authority associations and every local education authority.

  Cross-curricular Issues
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has responded to the interim report of the National Curriculum Council on cross-curricular issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has responded to the interim report of the National Curriculum Council on cross-curricular issues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The National Curriculum Council published preliminary guidance on cross-curricular issues 222
  in a circular about the national curriculum and whole curriculum planning published on 31 October. Copies have been sent to all schools in England. The council plans to develop this guidance in other publications to issue in the coming months.

  Single Domain Antibodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science from which companies staff were seconded to join the team working on single domain antibodies at the Medical Research Council laboratory of molecular biology at Cambridge.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand from the Medical Research Council that the team working on single domain antibodies at the Medical Research Council's laboratory of molecular biology at Cambridge did not include staff seconded from companies. However, two of the Medical Research Council scientists working on single domain antibodies hold appointments with the council which are funded by companies (Celltech, United Kingdom; and Behringwerka, Federal Republic of Germany).

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what patents have been applied for on single domain antibodies described by Sally Ward and others at the Medical Research Council laboratory at Cambridge in Nature, volume 341, pages 544–46 on 12 October.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand from the Medical Research Council that patent applications have been filed in respect of work on single domain antibodies carried out at the council's laboratory of molecular biology, Cambridge. Until the patent applications have been published the contents must remain confidential.

  Research Councils
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what powers he has to prevent research councils funding particular projects and programmes which they believe worthy of support within the financial resources available to them.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what powers he has to give directions to research councils.

  Mr. Jackson
  Section 2 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 empowers my right hon. Friend to give mandatory directions to any of the research councils as regards the use and expenditure of funds provided from the Exchequer.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which research councils are primarily responsible for research into the respective roles of the atmosphere, the oceans and the land in the global environment.

  Mr. Jackson
  Research into the global environment cannot be divided into the respective roles of the atmosphere, the oceans and the land because the interactions between these systems are crucial. The primary responsibility for such research rests with the Natural Environment Research Council. The Science and
  223
  Engineering Research Council is involved in basic research and technology development in atmospheric and ocean science. The Agricultural and Food Research Council is concerned with land studies and the impact of global change. The Economic and Social Research Council and the Medical Research Council are also concerned with the impacts of global change.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Advisory Board for the Research Councils; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has had a number of meetings with the chairman of the ABRC, Sir David Phillips, most recently on 8 November. They have discussed a number of matters concerning the research councils, particularly their funding.
  224
  My right hon. Friend hopes to meet the full board within the next two months.

  Capitation Allowances
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what capitation allowance per pupil is received by(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) schools in the maintained sector.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The items of expenditure covered by the term "capitation allowance" can vary from LEA to LEA. Accordingly, the Department does not collect data on the size of the allowances made by each LEA to the schools it maintains. Nor is there any element corresponding to a capitation allowance separately identified within the grant which the Department makes to grant-maintained schools.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the number of first-year undergraduates entering institutions of higher education(a) this and (b) last autumn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provisional figures indicate that there were 176,000 United Kingdom-domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich first degree and sub-degree higher education courses in Great Britain in autumn 1988. Preliminary indications are that this autumn's figures will be up to 10,000 higher. This is part of a wider and continuing trend which shows the success of the Government's education policies.

  Schools (Repairs)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that expenditure on repairs to school buildings will be adequate in the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend will be announcing at the time of the Chancellor's Autumn Statement the capital funding that will be available for schools within the Government's expenditure plans for 1990–91 to 1992–93. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 6 November the Government's proposals for the local authority grant settlement for 1990–91, including current spending on education. Those proposals allow for significant increases in spending on school repairs and maintenance relative to that assumed in the comparable total for 1989–90.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make extra funds immediately available to Bradford education authority to repair and renovate schools within the district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Bradford local education authority has received an allocation for prescribed expenditure for 1989–90 and it is for the authority to decide how to use the resources available to it in the light of local needs and priorities. Annual capital guidelines for education expenditure in 1990–91 are currently being considered and my right hon. Friend expects to be in a position to announce these in December.

  Charities
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from charities expressing concern over the UFC's proposals for charities to supply funding for university overheads.

  Mr. Jackson
  Neither the UFC nor the Government have any current proposals to change the basis on which charities provide support for university research or other activities. Nor are there any proposals to reduce the present level of public funding provided indirectly through UFC block grant to underpin university research projects sponsored by charities. My right hon. Friend has received two letters opposing such non-existent proposals.

  School Governors
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue guidance on the circumstances in which a local authority can remove its politically appointed school governors from school governing bodies, before their term of office has expired, in the light of the Haberdashers' Aske's case.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 9 November at column 735–36.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to allow school governors time off work with pay in order to perform their functions as governors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. School governors are generally entitled to reasonable time off from their employment to fulfil their duties. Many employers already acknowledge the value of the work of governors by granting paid leave. We very much welcome this and are working to encourage other employers to follow their example. But we believe that this is a matter best resolved between employer and employee, rather than by legislation.

  Astrophysics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what response he has made to the proposal for co-operation in an International Institute for Astrophysics by all the major countries, in the earliest stages of formulating programmes in astrophysical research, which would be beyond the resources of any one group of nations.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what support he is giving to the proposal in Nature on 22 June for an international institute for astrophysics, put forward by a group of astrophysicists from the United States of America, the Soviet Union, Japan and Europe.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have read with interest the proposal for an international institute of astrophysics, contained in the 22 June 1989 edition of Nature. As yet, however, this proposal is still being discussed among scientists and so does not yet call for a Government response.

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

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 9 November at column 738.

  University Funding
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the current level of university funding.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend will make a statement shortly when the current public expenditure round has been completed.

  AIDS
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what powers he prevented the economic and social research council supporting the survey of sexual behaviour proposed for the study of the epidemiology of AIDS.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend did not exercise any power to prevent the Economic and Social Research Council from supporting the survey and the council did not seek our advice on this. It decided not to proceed following the Government's decision not to provide financial support from the Department of Health's research programme.

  Science Budget
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has received from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the science budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend last received formal advice from the ABRC on the science budget for the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 on 12 May 1989. That advice was published and copies are available in the Library.

  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to reply to the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the science budget for 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend will be making a statement shortly.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by how much the increase in the gross domestic product deflator in the latest available quarter over the corresponding quarter in the previous year, has exceeded the increase assumed by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils in its advice on the allocation of the science budget dated 13 December 1988 of an increase in the science budget in real terms in 1989–90 of 11 per cent.

  Mr. Jackson
  Forecasts of the GDP deflator are usually published on two occasions each year—in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" and the Autumn Statement. The forecast GDP deflator for 1989–90 over 1988–89 at the time of the ABRC's advice was five per cent. as given in the 1988 Autumn Statement. The figure was subsequently revised to 5·5 per cent. in the 1989 "Financial Statement and Budget Report."

  Science and Engineering
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of higher education qualifications are awarded in science and engineering subjects; and what are the comparable figures for the major European Commission countries.

  Mr. Jackson
  The readily available information is as follows:228

  Higher education qualifications awarded in sciences and engineering

  Percentage of all qualifications

  Country

  Year obtained

  Sciences1

  Engineering2

  France

  1982

  16

  12

  Germany3

  1983

  7

  415

  Italy

  1984

  13

  7

  Netherlands

  1982

  5

  15

  United Kingdom5

  1984

  14

  16

  1987

  15

  14

  Source: Statistical Bulletin 4/87.

  1 Excluding medicine.

  2Including trade, craft and industry.

  312 per cent. of qualifications, mainly at sub degree higher education level, are not classified by subject, so that the figures for Germany arc probably understated.

  4 Sub degree higher education qualifications estimated from enrolments data.

  5Including estimates of qualifications awarded to students for professional qualifications in public sector colleges. Excluding private sector.

  Vice-Chancellors
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Committee of Vice-Chancellors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) on 2 November at column 274.

  Teachers (Re-entrants)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to encourage qualified teachers who are no longer teaching back into the profession.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science what proposals he has to encourage qualified teachers who are no longer teaching back into the profession.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our proposed education support grant programme for 1990–91 includes support for expenditure of over £2 million on local recruitment measures to attract back more former teachers and to recruit mature entrants. Activities supported by this programme will build on considerable success: over half of all entrants to teaching in recent years have been former serving teachers returning to the classroom.

  Civil Scientific Research
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further plans he has to promote and finance further civil scientific research and development; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend will be making an announcement about the future levels of funding of the science budget shortly.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Association of County Councils to discuss the availability of local education authority grants and facilities to children on the assisted places scheme attending independent schools and city technology colleges.
  229
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No.

  Global Environment
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on arrangements for the co-ordination of research into the global environment.

  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is responsible for the co-ordination of research into the global environment.

  Mr. Jackson
  Research into the global environment embraces a wide range of work supported by the research councils and a number of other agencies. A correspondingly wide range of co-ordinating arrangements exist, at scientific level; between scientists, the research councils or other supporting agencies, and relevant Government Departments, and internationally. In the light of the pace of developments in this field, both in the United Kingdom and abroad, co-ordination arrangements are kept under regular review. As part of this process, consideration is currently being given to the creation of improved mechanisms for co-ordination.

  Bus Passes
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance is offered to local authorities by his Department concerning the issuance of bus passes to school children; and what are the regulations governing such issuance.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under section 55(1) of the Education Act 1944 it is for local education authorities to judge whether it is necessary to make arrangements to facilitate the attendance of pupils at schools. Transport provided under such arrangements must be free of charge. Section 55(2) provides a discretionary power for authorities to pay the whole or part of the travel expenses in other cases. There are no relevant regulations. No guidance has been issued on the specific question of bus passes, but a DES circular letter of 15 December 1981 set out the Secretary of State's views on school transport and travel expenses in the light of the 1980 Education Act's provisions on choice of school. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  GCSE
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the results of the GCSE examinations in schools and colleges in the year ending 1988–89 assessment year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As in previous years, my right hon. Friend and I have received a number of letters from Members of Parliament, parents and teachers about the summer 1989 GCSE results, though significantly fewer than in 1988, the first year of the GCSE.

  Hackney
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to visit Hackney.
  230
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has not so far received an invitation to visit Hackney, but we intend to visit as many of the inner London boroughs as possible before next April.

  Service Children
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had regarding the education of the children of service personnel.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None.

  Education (Inner London)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the state of preparations of the London boroughs to take over the responsibilities of the Inner London education authority in 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The inner London councils continue to make progress in setting up their education departments in readiness for the transfer of responsibilities on 1 April 1990. Certain local education authority functions were transferred to the councils on 1 August and 1 September 1989.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that schools teach young people about the dangers of drug abuse.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under the national curriculum children will be taught about the harmful effects of drugs and other substances. In addition, the important cross-curricular topics of health education and personal and social education will help equip young people with the skills and attitudes they need to resist pressures to misuse drugs, and to lead healthy lives.

  School Places
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to improve the formulas used or criteria adopted in his calculation of the likely need for school places in areas of rapidly growing population.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for local education authorities to calculate the likely need for school places in areas of rapidly growing population.

  Nottingham CTC
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the exclusion from Nottinghamshire county council music and dance facilities of children attending the state-maintained Nottingham city technology college.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend remains most concerned about these cases; my hon. Friend will shortly receive a letter from the Department on the subject.

  Clerical Assistants (Schools)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the rate of pay of clerical assistants in(a) high schools, (b) middle schools and (c) first schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  School clerical assistants are usually paid on the local government administrative, professional, technical and clerical spine, the precise rate of pay being determined in the light of local circumstances and priorities.

  School Duties
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what time is assessed as being required for(a) curriculumn responsibilities, (b) pastoral duties, (c) record keeping, (d) assessment and moderating and (e) classroom preparation at each age band of primary and secondary education; and what proportion of teaching and general costs have been allocated to each such band.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Teachers are required to be available for work for 195 days in any year of which 190 days shall be days on which they may be required to teach pupils, and to perform such duties at such times and such places as

  Collection

  SCHOOLS

  Pupils

  Form 7

  Information on the curriculum needs and aspects of disability of pupils with statements of special educational needs

  Collection discontinued w.e.f. 1989

  Data for pupils by age as at 31 December

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1980

  Data for pupils by age and course of study (cross-analysis)

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1985

  Teachers

  Form 618G

  September return

  Stopped w.e.f. September 1987

  DTR based tables:

  (a) Number of students entering ITT

  Not published w.e.f. 1988 but data available except for item (c)

  (b) Number of students attending courses for qualified teachers

  (c) Full-time teachers in direct grant Grammar schools

  (d) Teachers in independent schools

  (e) Teachers Superannuation

  Exams

  Surveys of Examining Boards

  Ceased after 1985 survey

  Educational buildings

  ;

  Form ABB 30

  Data on the annual progress report on educational buildings in each LEA

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1989

  FHE

  Students

  Collection and publication ceased after 1980 (transfer of responsibility

  FESR data for Wales

  to the Secretary of State for Wales)

  FE Examinations entries and passes

  Not published in the FE Volume since 1979

  Statistics of ITT students in University Departments of Education

  Not included in 1986 and 1987 editions of FE Statisics Volume, due to problems arising from a switch in data source. Publication to be recommenced in 1988 Volume

  Residential students

  FSHR Survey

  Number of HE and FE full-time and sandwich course students in halls of residence at polytechnics and other FHE institutions

  Collection ceased after the November 1987 survey

  232
  may be specified by the head teacher for 1,265 hours in any year. The allocation of resources to individual schools is a matter for local education authorities.

  Portage Schemes
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he aims to achieve comprehensive geographical coverage for portage schemes; and how many such schemes operate in the county of Devon.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Between 1986 and 1989, pump-priming funds to provide portage were offered to every LEA in England, though the education support grant (ESG); 89 out of 97 LEAs took it up. Although no new ESG funds for portage are available, LEAs are encouraged to develop further schemes themselves. There is one scheme in the county of Devon.

  Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has discontinued(a) collection or (b) the publication of any statistics since 1979.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The main changes to the collection of regular statistics and to their publication are as follows:
  233

  Collection

  Students Staff ratios

  Annual Monitoring Survey

  Collection of data by Burnham category

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1988–89

  FE Revenue

  FE Revenue Accounts Survey

  Separate data for gas, electricity, solid fuel and fuel oil

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1987–88

  Student awards

  Form 503G

  Data in respect of discretionary award holders under Section

  1(6) and Section (2) of the 1962 Education Act as amended:

  (a) by status and rate of grant

  Collection and publication ceased w.e.f. 1983–84

  (b) married, independent and staying outside the United Kingdom

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1983–84

  (c) numbers in receipt of all additional allowances

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1983–84

  Separate data on women students for (a) and (b) above and for mandatory award holders

  Collection and publication ceased w.e.f. 1983–84

  Data for:

  (a) mandatory awards for married and independent students studying permanently outside the United Kingdom

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1984–85

  (b) numbers in receipt of dependents allowances by sex

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1984–85

  (c) numbers in receipt of lesser-value awards by sex

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1984–85

  (d) number of nil award-holders in receipt of free board and lodging

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1984–85

  (e) number of full-value award holders in the polytechnics and colleges sector for whom no fees were paid by the LEA

  Collection ceased w.e.f. 1984–85

  Greenways School, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of Greenways school, Grassendale, Liverpool, and the special education in that city.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Liverpool local education authority published a preliminary report on special educational provision in the city in June. That report recommends the closure of Greenways and White Thorn special schools, and the establishment of three new nursery/infant assessment units. However, no formal proposals under section 14 of the Education Act 1981 have as yet been received by the Secretary of State in respect of the closure of these schools.

  Education Spending (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money was spent per pupil in Northumberland on(a) special education, (b) primary schools, (c) secondary schools and (d) tertiary education in each year from 1978–79 to the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The available information is given in the table.

  Net institutional expenditure1 per pupil2—cash terms Northumberland

  Primary £

  Secondary £

  Special £

  1978–79

  415

  575

  n.a.

  1979–80

  425

  580

  n.a.

  1980–81

  530

  710

  n.a.

  1981–82

  600

  770

  n.a.

  1982–83

  655

  845

  2,890

  1983–84

  690

  925

  3,315

  1984–85

  720

  1,000

  3,800

  1985–86

  755

  1,075

  4,325

  234

  Primary £

  Secondary £

  Special £

  1986–87

  840

  1,230

  4,700

  1987–88

  945

  1,390

  5,570

  Separate figures are not available for tertiary education which forms part of maintained further education.

  1 Net Institutional Expenditure includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals, central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2The figures are bases on LEA expenditure returns to DoE and pupil number returns to DES.

  School Teachers
  Mr Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education And Science what has been the number of teachers from Europe who have been appointed to schools in England and Wales during the last six months due to teacher shortages.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information is not available in the form requested but a total of 249 teachers from EC countries were accorded qualified teacher status in the period I May to 31 October.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all measures which have been taken since 1987 to increase the supply of school teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The principal measures taken since 1987 to increase the supply of teachers are as follows:

  1. Bursary schemes for trainee teachers in maths, physics, CDT and (from 1989) chemistry.

  2. Support for new initiatives in higher education institutions and the Open university for new types of initial teacher training and conversion courses.

  3. The setting up of the TASC (teacher as a career unit to promote career and improve recruitment practices among local education authorities and initial teacher training institutions.

  4. The support of publicity and advertising campaigns organised by

  235
  TASC.

  5. The introduction of new routes to teaching, including the licensed teacher and the articled teacher schemes.

  6. The provision of education support grant as pump-priming support for LEA's local initiatives to improve the recruitment of new teachers not currently in service.

  7. The provision of taster courses about teaching as a career for mature people seeking a new career in teaching.

  8. The provision of funding through LEA training grants scheme for retraining courses to increase the supply of teachers in shortage subjects.

  We shall continue and intensify our efforts to meet the demands of schools in the 1990s.

  Disabled Students Allowance
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities pay the disabled students allowance retrospectively.

  Mr. Jackson
  The disabled students allowance is available as part of the grant under the mandatory awards regulations for a student who, as a result of his disability, is obliged to incur extra expenditure (other than travel expenses which are provided for separately) in attending his course. It is for the local education authority to assess the amount it considers appropriate up to the ceiling specified in the regulations, and to decide how and when to make grant payments. In practice assessments are often likely to take account of expenditure already incurred, but the Department does not collect detailed information on authorities' procedures.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has carried out any research into the adequacy of the disabled students allowance for meeting the additional costs incurred by disabled students.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave on 13 November to my right hon. Friend for Exeter Mr. Hannam.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has carried out any research into the possible effects of a loans system on disabled students and prospective students with disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  The top-up loans scheme is designed to provide an additional source of support for all students.

  School Buildings, Derbyshire
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will announce his decision on the revised bid for capital spending on school buildings submitted by Derbyshire county council in connection with its post-primary reorganisation plans for the Chesterfield and north-east Derbyshire areas.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend hopes to announce his decisions on the distribution of annual capital guidelines to LEAs before Christmas. Derbyshire county council's capital expenditure plans for 1990–91 are currently under consideration and it is impossible to say what Derbyshire's annual capital guideline for education is likely to be. I should, however, point out that annual capital guidelines are unhypothecated and therefore it is for the individual authority to determine, in the light of local needs and circumstances, which projects it should undertake.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked of his Department in 1988–89.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  To date, the Department has received 742 oral and 1,579 written questions.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many written parliamentary questions he refused to answer in the parliamentary Session 1988–89.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is the Department's policy to answer all written parliamentary questions tabled to my right hon. Friend, unless the information can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what was the cost to his Department of answering parliamentary(a) oral and (b) written questions in the parliamentary Session 1988–89;

  (2) how many written parliamentary questions to him in session 1988–89 received answers that the information (a) was not available, (b) was not separately recorded, (c) was not centrally recorded, (d) was not recorded in Government statistics or (e) could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate expense.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with the IAC. Officials from the Department gave oral evidence to the committee on 9 November.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on current procedure for the settlement of salaries and conditions for teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is currently engaged in a series of meetings with the teacher unions and the employers at which a range of possibilities for new permanent pay determination arrangements is being discussed.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has had any correspondence with Cheshire county council concerning the pay of home tutors and supply teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. Local education authorities have certain discretions under the school teachers' pay and conditions document 1989 to pay teachers on short-notice contracts at rates they consider appropriate in order to recruit and retain sufficient teachers of the right quality.
  237
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy that the element within rate support grant for school teachers' pay within any new pay determination machinery be determined solely on the merits of the case for teachers' pay.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is at present discussing with unions and employers what form the new pay determination machinery should take. The implications for annual local authority spending settlements will be considered during those discussions.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to introduce a new teachers' pay negotiating body.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is currently engaged in a series of meetings with the teacher unions and the employers at which a range of possibilities for new permanent pay determination arrangements is being discussed.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what in real terms, was headteachers' pay in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The average pay of a headteacher in April 1989 was 18,883 in the primary sector and £26,185 in the secondary sector. The equivalent figures for 1979 (in real terms) were £14,841 and £19,875 respectively.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what detailed arrangements he now proposes for implementing increased tuition fees in higher education in 1990–91.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We have already announced that the maximum tuition fee for most first degree and designated comparable courses in publicly-funded institutions which will be reimbursed through mandatory student awards will be £1,675 from September 1990. In order to ensure that public funds are not provided in advance of need, I have decided that this tuition fee should be paid in termly instalments rather than in a single annual payment as at present. The funding councils will also adjust the profile of their recurrent grant instalments to institutions so that the combined flow of fee and grant income more closely matches institutions' spending patterns during the year. The changes have been discussed with representatives of the local authorities and the institutions, and we shall now consult further about the detailed arrangements for the termly fee payments.

  I have also considered what fee levels would be appropriate for reimbursement through mandatory awards for courses where a student spends at least a year away from an institution—for example students on thick sandwich courses or spending a year as foreign language assistants. In these cases, the costs to the institution are usually less during the year away than for the main part of the course. I have decided that the maximum fee reimbursed in such cases should be half the standard tuition fee.

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.

Hong Kong
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making with regard to matters currently of concern to the people of Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we are working vigorously on a range of issues of concern to Hong Kong. In particular we are rallying international support for the territory as part of our efforts to restore confidence and we are intensifying our efforts to find a humane and durable solution to the problems of Vietnamese boat people.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, is it not the case that the purpose which Her Majesty's Government have in mind of trying to establish some kind of selective passport scheme is in order to maintain the stability and economic progress of Hong Kong? In those circumstances will the Government ensure that the number in receipt of passports is generous; by which I mean at least half a million? Will he make it clear that the issue of passports is designed to keep people in Hong Kong and to discourage them from leaving Hong Kong in order to find their own salvation elsewhere? Therefore, will the Government associate the passport scheme with the waiving of resident rights?
Very briefly as regard the Vietnamese boat people, will my noble friend agree that the numbers coming into Hong Kong have increased from 1,000 in 1985 to 33,000 in the first nine months of this year? In those circumstances, surely urgent action to repatriate them to their own country is now essential.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend asked a number of questions. On the progress of the nationality scheme we are working urgently on a scheme to give the assurance of right of abode to some people in both private and public sectors on the basis of value of service to Hong Kong as well as connections with the United Kingdom. Our aim is to give to those people whose professional, administrative, technical and managerial skills are essential to the continued success of Hong Kong confidence to remain in the territory, which was a point raised by my noble friend.
As regards the suggestion about numbers, I must ask your Lordships to be patient. We hope to be able to announce details around the turn of the year.
I must also point out that there are now almost 57,000 Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong, of
1216
whom about 40,000 are likely to be screened out as non-refugees. As I said in my original Answer, we are working urgently to find a humane and durable solution to that problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question concerning the position of the Basic Law. Is it not the case at present that the Legislative Council is asking for more elected members in the elections to the Legislative Council to be held in 1991? Can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government are adhering to the original 10 or are they prepared to concede that the Legislative Council has a good case when it asks for more than that; for example, as many as 40 per cent. of the total?
Secondly, can the Minister say whether he has seen the newspaper reports yesterday and today which make serious allegations; namely, that Her Majesty's Government have given secret assurances to the Chinese Government that there will be no meaningful political reform before 1997? Will the noble Lord deny that categorically?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's first point on the representative government, that whole subject is under very active consideration both here and in Hong Kong. We need to reconsider the present plans for the Legislative Council elections in 1991. However, we shall want to ensure that the decisions which we take are the right ones and reflect the wishes of the community as a whole. Of course, since June there has been cause for a faster rate of change but no clear consensus within Hong Kong has yet emerged. The OMELCO proposals are a significant development which has helped to stimulate debate in Hong Kong. We shall wish to see what comes out of those.
The Basic Law, which the noble Lord also mentioned, is a different matter from the one to which I have just referred. That is a matter for the Chinese Government. However, we are right to satisfy ourselves that the provisions of the Basic Law fully accord with the terms of the Joint Declaration.
Regarding the noble Lord's last question, I have no knowledge that what is reported in the newspaper has any basis of truth. I shall certainly look into the matter and I hope to take a suitable opportunity to give the noble Lord the reassurance which he seeks.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister be so good as to inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government have made a direct appeal to the Commonwealth, to the European Community and to the United States to take in, in the worst possible case, the inhabitants of Hong Kong? If the Government have made that appeal, will he tell us what the response has been?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since June we have done everything possible to rally international support for Hong Kong, including the idea of a multinational safety net, as part of our efforts to restore confidence in the territory. We have raised the matter on numerous occasions, including the Madrid European Council, the Paris Economic

1217
Summit and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, as well as in bilateral contacts with, among others, the United States, Canada and Australia.
In both the Paris summit and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting our partners publicly acknowledged that the international community has an important role to play in maintaining confidence in Hong Kong.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, to reinforce the point made in the first supplementary by my noble friend Lord Eden, does my noble friend agree that there is a close parallel in the recent example of East Germany where citizens of that country, having gained freedom of egress and right of abode, have apparently chosen to either stay in or return to their country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the comparison between Hong Kong and East Germany is not entirely relevant. The Federal German Government consider that all Germans have a right to settle in the Federal Republic, where in any case many of the newest arrivals already have family or friends. British dependent territory citizens, however, do not have a right of abode in the United Kingdom in accordance with the British Nationality Act. The point my noble friend makes —that having been given the right to come they may perhaps return —is quite a good one.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, concerning the Minister's words on finding a humane solution to the problem of the Vietnam refugees, can he say whether a forced repatriation could be part of that solution? Alternatively, are there any plans to give economic and development aid to Vietnam in order to encourage the voluntary repatriations which we should all like to see?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course we wish voluntary repatriation to go as far as possible, and a number of people have already returned voluntarily. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that voluntary repatriation alone cannot provide the comprehensive solution. That is why the international community accepted that all those screened out as non-refugees should in due course be returned to Vietnam.
In regard to the use of force, normal deportation procedures will be used. These are similar procedures which are applied world-wide in deporting illegal immigrants. We certainly do not rule out reintegration assistance to Vietnam as part of a comprehensive repatriation programme.
Lord Morris: My Lords, as part of the restoration, or rather the maintenance of the confidence of the people of Hong Kong in their future, will my noble friend comment on a recent summary dismissal from the committee on the draft laws by the Peking Government? I refer to Mr. Martin Lee and one other member of the Legislative Council whose name I cannot pronounce.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, the Basic Law is a matter for the Chinese Government and members of the Basic Law drafting committee are appointed by a standing committee at the National People's Congress. Suspension of the two gentlemen concerned, therefore, is a matter for the Chinese authorities. We have made clear to the Chinese authorities on a number of occasions our hope that they will take account of the full range of opinion in Hong Kong in the drafting of the Basic Law. There still remain 18 Hong Kong members out of a total of 51 on the drafting commit:ee. The point my noble friend makes regarding confidence, which I made in my original Answer, is a valid one in this case.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord go a little further than simply not ruling out aid to Vietnam? Is it not the unique denial of international help which has placed Vietnam in a situation which people run away from rather than stay in? In these circumstances would not a positive endeavour to bring international help to Vietnam reverse that situation and be one of the best things that could be done to bring about a willingness to return to that country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we do not rule out reintegration assistance, but to qualify for a full programme of aid Vietnam must first fulfil its responsibilities towards its own people and to its neighbours. There is a lot the Vietnamese themselves could do to bring themselves back into the international community and to become more suitable recipients of aid.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, is it not clear that approximately 90 per cent. of the boat people now coming to Hong Kong are very poor peasant farmers, fishermen and others from North Vietnam who are in search of El Dorado and who in no way come within the interpretation of Aricle 14(1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have in percentage terms the figure to which my noble friend refers, but, as I said earlier, there are 57,000 people in Hong Kong of whom approximately 40,000 are likely to be screened out as non-refugees.

Wheel-Clamping Policy: Effect
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Ewart Biggs Baroness Ewart Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the traffic conditions in London have improved as a result of their wheel-clamping policy and how much revenue has been raised thereby.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, wheel-clamping has substantially reduced illegal parking in the parts of central London where it operates. That is its main objective. Income from fees to recover costs was £2·7 million in 1987–88 and £3·2 million in 1988–89.

1219
Studies by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory suggest that traffic speeds in central London would be slower in the absence of clamping.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that useful information. Will he agree that many of us who drive around London have seen no kind of improvement in traffic flow as a result of wheel-clamping? In some cases it might even hamper the traffic flow. Is the Minister aware that very extensive plans are being made in many other European capitals to take on their traffic problems?
Does the Minister agree that when the Government make their plans the following practices will be very important: first, loading and unloading should be banned during peak hours because it undoubtedly creates many jams? Secondly, responsibility for traffic enforcement should be taken from the present hotchpotch of private companies and the police and given to the local highway authorities? Thirdly, will the Government also bear in mind the strong relationship between car use and public transport?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, wheel-clamping is a proven success in deterring illegal parking. It will continue to be a major part of the department's policy towards the effective enforcement of parking controls. Since wheel-clamping was privatised it has been much more efficient and effective.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend impress upon both the police and local authorities the need to mark clearly any change in the parking rules and particularly the suspension of resident parking areas which sometimes occurs in a very obscure way?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I take note of my noble friend's remarks and I shall certainly pass them on.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that there are very few people who will accept his interpretation of the benefit of wheel clamps and car towing? On the contrary, most of us consider those measures to be counter-productive in that clamped vehicles are left for days on the side of the road at the point of the original obstruction. The towing vehicles themselves are an obstruction for an hour or more while it is sorted out which vehicle should be taken away. Nobody I know will support the views expressed by the noble Viscount.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not agree. A report by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory shows a substantial reduction in parking on yellow lines and less illegal parking in residents' bays and at meters. The number of cars illegally parked has decreased since wheel-clamping was introduced from 150,000 vehicle hours spent on yellow lines each day to 70,000 vehicle hours each day, which is half the original figure.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the main benefit of wheel-clamping is the protection of the single yellow line which is supposed to be used by trade vehicles for unloading? If there is no place for such vehicles to park at the kerb they double park and thus hold up the traffic. My noble friend is quite right in saying that there have been significant reductions in breaches of the yellow line regulations and in the amount of double-parking by trade vehicles.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for confirming what I have just said.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Viscount's figures were very impressive but somewhat mystifying. Can he tell us who goes round measuring exactly how many illegal hours are spent by vehicles on yellow lines?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not, but somebody does!
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend explain how it came about that last Sunday night there was a traffic block in Park Lane which lasted one and three-quarter hours? Does he know the cause of it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not believe that it was due to wheel-clamping.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, if the figures that the noble Viscount has given have been achieved, is it not because there is a deterrent effect? Does the Minister agree that there is still the problem to which my noble friend referred; namely, that where there is illegal parking on main highways and bus lanes and also dangerous parking, it is far better to remove a vehicle than to clamp it? Is the noble Viscount aware —I am certain he will be —that when the clamping procedure was introduced in the 1982 Act one of its main purposes was to catch the persistent offender? Is he further aware that in the area of the Gwent police authority new technology has been introduced called "intelligent ticketing terminals"? The system enables the police immediately to identify the persistent offender. Will the Minister say whether the system is being monitored and whether it is likely to be discussed with other chief officers?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was kind enough to give me notice of his last question, we have been in touch with the Gwent police who state that they have no such system. However, the noble Lord may be referring to the computer-based system which is being developed by some local authorities in order to keep records of parking offences. It involves punching in car registrations to find out whether the car or the owner is guilty of a previous offence. As the noble Lord said, wheel-clamping is a deterrent. I believe that it is unlikely that anyone who has been wheel-clamped once —certainly twice —will become a persistent offender.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in the light of what the noble Viscount has said I shall check my source of information. However, I have in front of me a leaflet describing the scheme in printed advertising form.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the point is that at the moment wheel-clamping takes place only in London.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the inevitable increase in traffic, will my noble friend agree that the time will come when traffic entering cities will be limited and that there must be restrictions imposed in time, if not now? Can the Minister say how much study has been put into this matter? Does the Minister agree that such measures must be taken sooner rather than later?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not prepared to speculate on that matter. I can assure my noble friend that the problem is being studied in depth.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Viscount mentioned an improvement in the situation. I have been motoring into London for the past 30 years. I come down from the Angel to the Smithfield Market and the traffic has become increasingly worse every year. I drove in the other day and it was appalling to see the number of vehicles parked on yellow lines in that area.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot comment on individual travel.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that there is a growing feeling that wheel-clamping is just another bit of tinkering with a growing problem and that, sooner or later, the Government and others must accept that principal roads are intended for movement and not for use as parking lots or as delivery areas during rush hours?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has a point, but at the moment I cannot go further than I have done already.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as I see my noble friend the Leader of the House on the Front Bench, is my noble friend aware that we have already taken 20 minutes of the time intended for all Questions? Does he not agree that it is time for us to move on?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, it is time for the next Question.

Interest Rates: Policy
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their policy on interest rates remains unchanged.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government's policy remains to set and
1222
hold interest rates at a level which will bring down inflation. There are clear signs that this policy is working.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that at their present level interest rates continue to cause great hardship to individuals, particularly those with mortgages? Does he further agree that the problem is now spreading to industry and trade as demonstrated by the latest CBI returns issued yesterday? Is the noble Lord aware that on 31st October, in another place, his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was absolutely right that all practicable measures should be used to deal with inflation and that they included fiscal measures? Will the Minister therefore indicate to the House whether those steps portend a change in policy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no change in policy. The Chancellor has said that it is right to use all practical levers available to bear down on inflation, and only one of those is fiscal policy. The key lever as regards inflation is monetary policy through interest rates.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the noble Lord's attention been drawn to an interview given to Le Soir, a Belgian newspaper, on 1st November by the chairman of the Conservative Party, in which he said:
"The differences arose"—
the differences between the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister —
"on general economic policy and the whole level of interest rates"?
In view of the fact that the present Chancellor is widely expected to continue the policies of his predecessor, can the noble Lord say whether there is still unanimity in the Government on this point?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not interested in alleged disagreements between past Chancellors of the Exchequer and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the policy remains the same.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, have the Government considered varying interest rates in relation to their regional policies? Is the Minister aware that their present policy on interest rates, which will obviously continue for some time, will affect the regions first, not least the northern region? Is he further aware that the suggestion I am making is a well-established practice in the EC? Will the Government give consideration to it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not practical to have two-tier interest rates between different regions. As to the noble Lord's point about the regions being affected first, he will be aware that one of the signs that the interest rate policy is working is the cooling down of house prices. They have cooled off considerably more in the South than in the North.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, with the appointment of a new Chancellor, many of us expected to see a change from the policies which have so patently failed up to now? Are the Government not aware that the continuing problem is the growth of credit? Will they now take some direct action on credit and require the banks and financial institutions to make special deposits with the Bank of England?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. Credit is not a problem. Only 15 per cent. of personal sector debt comes from credit. There are no plans to change that situation.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, is the Minister aware —
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, the Clerk of the Parliaments has announced the next Question.

Small Businesses and Payment Delays
3.2 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of reports that a number of large firms propose to counter the burden of a 15 per cent. base rate by deliberately delaying payments due to smaller suppliers and sub-contractors, and whether they intend to protect small businesses from such behaviour.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government would be extremely concerned should the delayed payment of bills be adopted by large firms as a systematic strategy. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this practice is widespread or that it is more likely to be pursued by large companies in the present economic climate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, although I fear that it is a somewhat overoptimistic one. Is he aware —I am sure that he must be —that the Government have very commendably and very effectively encouraged an enormous growth in the number of small businesses in this country? Substantial numbers of redundant miners, steel workers and others have been encouraged to start a new life by becoming self-employed, which by and large they have managed very successfully. Does he not agree that it would be a tragedy if these people were driven to the wall by the high interest rates, about which we have just been speaking, accentuated by the unethical tactics of a few mainly monopsonistic large organisations?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to show that there is a link between business failure and late payment. I must point out to him that business failures are not caused by one specific factor. Indeed, if VAT registrations are examined as a sign of a healthy growing economy, they have accelerated from 500 a week in 1986 to 1,200 a week
1224
in 1988. That is not a sign that companies are being put out of business by the problem of late payments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that small businesses have been responsible for some employment growth? Would it not be an awful pity if this employment creation were to be inhibited because of present interest rates?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is truly magnificent to hear a member of the Labour Party talking about small firms in such glowing terms, especially when one considers that, under the Labour Government, the number of people in self-employment actually fell. We of course agree that small businesses are fundamental to the growth of the whole economy.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that noble Lords on this side of the House have always supported employment creation, whether through small firms or large firms, and that that remains the policy on these Benches?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, self-employment fell in the 1970s.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, in view of the resolution on sub-contracting adopted by the Council of Ministers on 26th September, which expresses a need for a much sharper legal framework, with particular reference to periods of payment, does my noble friend agree that legislation is now required?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government believe that the best way forward is through negotiation between individual commercial organisations, not through legislation. To that effect the Government have published two documents —Payment on Time and Prompt Payment Please, both of which are in the Library.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, apart from the firms mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in his Question, a large number of health authorities are deliberately, as an act of policy, delaying payments for bills in a desperate effort to make ends meet? Does this not involve the Government?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is no clear evidence that organisations have adopted a systematic strategy of late payment. If there is such evidence, we shall be pleased to hear about it.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am surprised, because it is a well-known fact that health authorities are delaying payment as an act of policy.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is up to those who supply health authorities to take them to court to reclaim the amount of money that they have not been paid.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, does my noble friend remember that the question of statutory interest was debated at length on 6th April 1982 during consideration of the Administration of

1225
Justice Bill, not least because statutory interest was recommended as a way forward by the Law Commission in its report No. 88? Can my noble friend say whether the Government now support that Law Commission report, or —this is perhaps a rather frivolous suggestion —are Law Commission reports not in fashion today?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there is nothing frivolous about Law Commission reports. There is a good deal of disagreement within small firms themselves as to whether legislation would be helpful. For instance, the CBI's Smaller Firms Council and other lobby groups are against legislation or have serious reservations about it. Under current law there is provision for individual companies to get their money. They do not use that legislation very much. There is no reason to believe that they would do so if there were additional legislation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that where there is a monopsony —where a sole purchaser of goods is supplied by a large number of fiercely competing producers—one cannot negotiate on equal terms?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord can produce scientific evidence that this is a major problem, the Government will be delighted to hear it.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that whereas it may be true that certain companies have a bad reputation in regard to paying smaller companies, a good many more companies have a positive policy of paying their smaller suppliers early as part of their social responsibility?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the base rate standing at about 15 per cent., what conceivable objection can there be to the proposal in the Law Commission report to introduce statutory interest? After all, it does not have to be used in litigation by anybody who does not want to use it. However, it would exist. What is the objection?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the conceivable objection is that it would be an interference in commercial freedom.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, is it not a fact that small businesses simply do not have the means to defend themselves in the courts when their goods and services are taken from them and not paid for?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes said a moment ago, the majority of firms experience no such problems. The Government, who are very keen on small firms, have no evidence to show that this is an outstanding
1226
problem. However, if this really is the position, we should like to hear about it.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I rise to ask for the support of the House in challenging a preliminary decision of the Leader of the House, who turned down a request this morning for a Statement to be made on the White Paper on community care. This Question has been put down because in today's edition of The Times there is an article which states that the White Paper on community care will be published this Thursday after the House has prorogued and that it will be followed by a Bill which is to be introduced next Wednesday. Obviously this would give the House—and, indeed, the country —no opportunity to debate the White Paper before the Bill is presented. We should also bear in mind the fact that no Green Paper has been produced on the subject.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is the case that the noble Baroness informed me this morning that she would like to ask a Private Notice Question on the matter which she has just outlined and that I said I felt this was not of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply.
The situation we are in is that we have known since 12th July, when my noble friend Lord Henley repeated a Statement in this House on community care, that the Government intended to publish a White Paper on the subject in the autumn. The position we are in at present is that the Secretary of State has not announced that he is publishing the White Paper.
I must say to the noble Baroness that, although I understand her interest in the matter, I really do not think that this is an occasion for a Private Notice Question.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said. However, since this White Paper has not been published and since Parliament prorogues on Thursday, what are we to assume from his reply? Are we to assume that the White Paper will be published some time after the loyal Address? If that is to be the case, can he give us a guarantee that there will be an opportunity for consultation on the White Paper before a Bill is presented to the House? Further, will there be opportunity for a debate in this Chamber, which is customary procedure after a White Paper is published, or are we suddenly to receive a Bill following the publication of a White Paper which no one has had any opportunity of considering? Will the noble Lord kindly clarify the issue?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is in exactly the same position as all Members of the House; namely, that we all know the publication of a White Paper is intended by the Government during the autumn, but the

1227
Secretary of State has not, as yet, announced that he is about to publish the document.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord use his offices with his right honourable friend to suggest to him that, if it is his intention to publish a White Paper, then he should do so tomorrow before the House rises so that there can be an opportunity for some discussion before such matters are introduced into a Bill next Wednesday—if that is also the intention?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in the matter. However, I think that we are now beginning to stray into general discussion on the question of the forthcoming White Paper. We know that it is forthcoming because the Government have promised that a White Paper will be published in the autumn. If I may say so, the correct action to take would be to await an announcement by the Secretary of State that he is about to publish the document.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House saying that the statement in The Times is not correct? Is that the position? No doubt he has seen the statement in question.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I never comment on reports which appear in newspapers.

Local Government and Housing Bill
3.14 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have to notify the House that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government and Housing Bill, has consented to place his interest as Duke of Cornwall, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

MOTIONS AND AMENDMENTS MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
[References are to the Bill 64 as first printed by the Lords]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
"Schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members
" —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations authorise or require any such relevant authority as may be specified or described in the regulations to make a scheme providing for the payment of—
1228

(a) basic allowance for every member of the authority who is a councillor;

(b) an attendance allowance in relation to the carrying out by any such member of such duties as may be specified in or determined under the regulations; and

(c) a special responsibility allowance for any such member who has such special responsibilities in relation to the authority as may be so specified or determined.

(2) Regulations under this section may also authorise or require a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations to include provision for the payment to appointed members of allowances in respect of such losses of earnings and expenses as —

(a) are necessarily sustained or incurred in the carrying out, in connection with their membership of the authority or any committee or sub-committee of the authority, of duties specified in or determined under the regulations; and

(b) are not of a description in respect of which provision is made for an allowance under any of sections 174 to 176 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 46 to 48 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) above, regulations under this section may contain such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for requiring a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations —

(a) to make it a condition of any payment by way of allowance that, in the financial year to which the payment would relate, the aggregate amount which the authority has paid out or is already liable to pay out under the scheme does not exceed such maximum amount as may be specified in or determined under the regulations;

(b) to make provision for different maximum amounts to be applicable, for the purposes of any such condition, in relation to different allowances or in relation to different members or members of different groups;

(c) to make provision in relation to claims which cannot be paid by virtue of any such condition and provision for the payment to members of the authority who are councillors of an amount by way of supplement to the basic allowance where, in any financial year, the aggregate paid out or owing under the scheme is less than an amount specified in or determined under the regulations;

(d) to provide that the amount authorised by virtue of subsection (2) above to be paid by way of allowance in any case shall not exceed such amount as may be so specified or determined;

(e) to contain such provision as may be so specified or determined with respect to the general administration of the scheme, with respect to the manner in which, time within which and forms on which claims for any allowance are to be made and with respect to the information to be provided in support of any such claim;

(f) to contain such provision as may be so specified or determined for avoiding the duplication of payments or of allowances, for determining the bodies by which payments of allowances are to be made and for the apportionment of payments between different bodies.

(4) Regulations under this section may—

(a) prohibit the payment, otherwise than in accordance with sections 174 to 176 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 46 to 48 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 or in such other cases as may be specified in the regulations, of any allowance to a member of a relevant authority who is a councillor or to any appointed member of a relevant authority;

(b) impose requirements on a relevant authority with respect to the publication, in the minutes of that authority or otherwise, of the details of amounts paid in pursuance of a scheme made under the regulations; and

1229

(c) contain such incidental provision and such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision in connection with the other provisions of the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) In this section "relevant authority" means —

(a) a local authority of any of the descriptions specified in any of the paragraphs of section 20(1) below, other than paragraphs (d) and (j), or in section 20(2) below; or

(b) any body on which a body which is a relevant authority by virtue of paragraph (a) above is represented and which is designated as a relevant authority for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and references in this section to an appointed member, in relation to a relevant authority, are references to any person who is a member of the authority without being a councillor or who is a member of one or more of the authority's committees or sub-committees without being a member of the authority."

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
2 Line 77, leave out second 'or'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to Lords Amendment No. 1. At the same time I shall speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to Lords Amendment No. 1, Commons Amendment No. 24 to Lords Amendment No. 23 and Commons consequential Amendment No. 25.
These are all minor technical amendments to the provisions on councillors allowances which this House agreed at Report stage should be included in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to the new clause to be inserted after Clause 17 ensure that appeal committees set up by governors of maintained schools continue to be able to receive allowances under the new arrangements.
Amendment No. 4 enables the Secretary of State to provide that members of bodies to which the provisions apply are to be treated as councillors for the purpose of the new allowances. Without this members of the London and metropolitan joint authorities would not be able to receive attendance or special responsibility allowance as they do at present. Finally, Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 make minor changes to the repeal of the existing provisions for allowances for members of the Broads Authority.
The amendments are necessary if the new arrangements for councillors' allowances are to operate effectively and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 to Lords Amendment No. 1. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have no objection to the content of these amendments. They do indeed remedy errors which were made when earlier amendments were introduced during the passage of the Bill. However, we are reaching a stage where the Government are rethinking a Bill as it proceeds on its course and the situation has got beyond a joke. It is bad enough for this enormous number of amendments to be introduced during the
1230
Bill's proceedings in this House, but when we find that we do not even have it right when the Bill leaves this Chamber and that it must be corrected during consideration of Commons amendments to our amendments, the matter has really gone too far.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 1
3 After Clause 17, line 81, at end insert 'or (c) any appeal committee so designated which is constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 or 3 or Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980'.
4 Line 86, at end insert—
'(6) In this section any reference to a councillor includes a reference to a member of the authority concerned who, in accordance with regulations under this section, is to be treated as if he were a councillor.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg 'to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in the said amendments. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 106, page 98, at end insert "and

(b) where an application for an HMO grant is accompanied by a certificate under section 102(7) above; and

(c) where, by virtue of section 128 below, sections 101 and 102 above do not apply to an application for a grant; and

(d) where an application for a grant is a landlord's common parts application"

AS A CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT 10 THE BILL
6 The Commons agreed to the above amendment and proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Page 99, line 8, at end insert— —
'( ) In a case where the application is a landlord's common parts application, each of the dwellings in the building concerned shall be taken into account under paragraph (b) or paragraph (bb) of subsection (2) above so as to determine an aggregate rent for the purposes of that subsection.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to Lords Amendment No. 5. I shall speak also to Commons Amendment No. 8 to Lords Amendment No. 7 and consequential Amendment No. 9.
The purpose of these three amendments is to clarify the operation of the common parts grant. The first is a consequential amendment to Clause 106 which sets out the matters to which a local authority should have regard in assessing the amount of a grant in the case of a landlord's application for common parts grant. It inserts a new subsection which parallels part of an amendment moved at Committee stage in this House dealing with HMO grants and provides for the rental income of each dwelling in a building to be taken into account. Without this amendment there is doubt as to whether the aggregate rental income could be assessed.

1231
The second is a minor amendment to another amendment moved in Committee. It clarifies the persons from whom grant can be recovered in the event of the sale of a building in respect of which a landlord has received a common parts grant.
The third is a consequential amendment to Clause 117 which provides a similar clarification in relation to the voluntary repayment of grant.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to Lords Amendment No. 5. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may make a point on Amendment No. 9 to which the noble Lord has just spoken. There is a misprint in the third line of the wording. I must ask whether it is within the competence of the draftsman to put this right. Obviously the draftsman cannot make any alteration which alters the sense of a parliamentary provision. However, equally he has full entitlement to do what he wishes about paragraphing and punctuation so long as it does not alter the sense of the wording. But in this case the intended insertion of the words "successor in title" is quite meaningless. I hope therefore that the draftsman can make the correction on his own initiative.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. I believe that I am right when I say that the draftsman can make the correction.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is too modest in his own defence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was reading a version that I have and which was published last Thursday. If the Minister looks at his white copy which was published today he will see that the error has already been corrected.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House and in particular myself are extremely grateful for the accurate observation made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
7 After Clause 115, insert the following new clause —
"Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application
.—(1) This section applies where a landlord's common parts application has been approved by a local housing authority.
(2) It is a condition of the grant that where the applicant makes a relevant disposal (other than an exempt disposal) of the building within the initial period, he shall pay to the local housing authority on demand the amount of the grant.
(3) A condition under subsection (2) above is a local land charge and shall, subject to subsection (5) and section 117 below, remain in force with respect to the building for a period of five years from the certified date.
(4) So long as a condition under subsection (2) above remains in force with respect to a building it is binding on any person who is for the time being an owner of the building.
(5) On satisfaction of the liability arising from a demand under this section, any condition under subsection (2) above shall cease to be in force with respect to the building in question.
(6) The expressions "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal" have the meanings assigned by section 116 below."
8 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Line 13, leave out 'an owner of the building' and insert 'a successor in title to that interest in the building by virtue of which, under section (Common parts grants: preliminary conditions) (2)(b) above, the applicant made his application'.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8 to the Lords Amendment No. 7. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AS A CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
9 The Commons proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Page 107, line 37, at end insert—
In the case of a grant condition imposed on a landlord's common parts application any reference in subsection (2) above to the owner of the building is a reference to the applicant or any such successor in title as is referred to in section (Condition requiring repayment of grant on certain disposals in case of landlord's common parts application) (4) above.'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 After Clause 140, insert the following new clause —
"Charges: temporary traffic signs
.Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the contrary, or the provisions of sections 138 to 140 above, a highway authority may not impose a charge for permitting temporary traffic signs to be placed on or near any road in their area by an organisation representative of road users under section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended by the Roads [Scotland) Act 1984 in its application to Scotland."
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Insert the following new clause—
'Charges: temporary traffic signs
.—(1) In section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (powers and duties of highways authorities and roads authorities as to placing of traffic signs) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) No charge may be made—

(a) in England and Wales, by a highway authority which is the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London, or

(b) in Scotland, by a local roads authority, with respect to the exercise of their power under subsection (1) above to permit a traffic sign to be placed on or near any road in their area if—

(i) the sign conveys information of a temporary nature or is otherwise intended to be placed only temporarily; and

(ii) the sign is to be placed by a body which is prescribed for the purposes of this subsection as being a body appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of the interests of road users or any class of road users."

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in any case where, before this section comes into force, the payment of a charge has been agreed.'.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof.
At Report stage on 25th October, we accepted an amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Lucas of Chilworth and Lord Erroll of Hale to prohibit authorities from charging for permitting the erection of temporary traffic signs. We did so in the expectation that a code of practice could be evolved between each of the parties to ensure greater consistency in the exercise of the statutory powers to allow such signs for sports meetings, exhibitions and other public gatherings attracting considerable volumes of traffic. I understand that talks to that end have already begun. The Government also undertook to look closely at the wording and to come forward with a government amendment, if necessary, at a later stage. Amendment No. 11 fulfils that promise. I have only a few comments by way of explanation.
The amendment, in the form of an insertion to Section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in substance reflects Amendment No. 10; that is to say, it prohibits local authorities from charging for permitting the erection of temporary traffic signs by organisations like the RAC, the AA and the CTC. It does so in a slightly different and, we believe, improved form in the following respects.
First, it makes quite clear which authorities are affected. The charging exemption is limited to local authorities in their capacity as highway authorities, or, in Scotland, roads authorities. It would be beyond the scope of the Bill to fetter the Secretary of State's powers in that respect, although I hasten to add that, in his capacity as highway authority, he has never sought to impose charges in connection with the matters under discussion.
Secondly, it defines more clearly what is meant by a temporary traffic sign, for the purpose of the charging exemption. The information may be of a temporary nature, or the placing of the sign may be for a temporary period. Both are covered.
The amendment leaves open to the Secretary of State the matter of prescribing in detail those bodies which are to benefit from the charging exemption. That is thought preferable to the reference in Amendment No. 10 to
"organisations representative of road users",
which is too imprecise. The bodies that the Secretary of State may include in any prescribed list would be those appearing to him to be representative of the interests of road users. They would certainly include the AA, and the RAC. Prescription would be by regulations, by virtue of the application of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and would be subject to consultation in the usual way. That is a better approach and will ensure that the right people are included. Application to Scotland is automatically
1234
provided by virtue of paragraph 93 of Schedule 9 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
Lastly, provision is included in subsection (2) to deal with any necessary transitional arrangements before the new clause comes into force.
With those few words of explanation I hope that your Lordships will be happy to accept the Government Amendment as a suitable substitute for Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof—(Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
12 Before Clause 145, insert the following new clause—
"Housing accommodation
.—(1) Part II of the Housing Act 1985 (Provision of Housing Accomodation) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 32 —
"32A —No condition shall be attached by the Secretary of State to the payment of grant to a local housing authority, or to the giving of a consent to:

(i) the disposal of land, or

(ii) the use of funds, or

(iii) the payment of grant to a housing association

by a local authority, which would require such authority or housing association to grant occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3,000 people or less."
(2) Part II of the Housing Act 1988 (Housing Associations) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 50 —
"50A —No condition shall be attached by the Housing Corporation to the payment of grant to a housing association or to the giving of consent to the use of funds by a housing association, which would require such housing association to grant to occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in a rural parish with a population of 3,000 people or less."
13 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
because it alters the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed to be sufficient.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13 but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof.
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
13A Before Clause 161, insert the following new clause—
("Housing accommodation)
—(1) Part II of the Housing Act 1985 (Provision of Housing Accommodation) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 32—
"32A —No condition shall be attached by the Secretary of State to the payment of grant to a local housing authority, or to the giving of a consent to —

(i) the disposal of land, or

(ii) the use of funds, or

(iii) the payment of grant to a housing association

by a local authority, which would require such authority or housing association to grant occupiers a right to

1235
acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in an area eligible for investment under any programme designated by the Housing Corporation for development in rural areas, or such other area as the Corporation may consider it appropriate to designate, except in accordance with subsection (2) below.
(2) No condition as specified in subsection (1) above shall be specified except where the Secretary of State has certified that no funding available from the Corporation to a housing association for the purpose of repurchasing that dwelling at a subsequent date is or would be funding which would otherwise be available to a housing association for the purpose of providing housing in an area other than an area eligible or designated in accordance with this section."
(2) Part II of the Housing Act 1988 (Housing Associations) shall be amended by the inclusion of the following section after section 50 —
"50A —No condition shall be attached by the Housing Corporation to the payment of grant to a housing association or to the giving of consent to the use of funds by a housing association, which would require such housing association to grant to occupiers a right to acquire the full equity or any specified share of the equity of any dwelling which is constructed in an area eligible for investment under any programme designated by the Corporation for development in a rural area, or any other area which the Corporation has designated for the purposes of section 32A of the Housing Act 1985, except where a certificate has been issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with that section".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter came to our attention only at the last stages of the Commons consideration of our amendment on Wednesday evening of last week. Some noble Lords will recall that we had a considerable debate throughout almost all stages of the Bill on the Government's initial proposal to extend the right to buy to dwellings which were particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age. The amendment was first brought in late at night on a small vote. We then altered it on Report by a much larger vote.
Subsequent discussions took place between all parties concerned. I understand that the proposals which the Government have now made are acceptable to those parties and, in particular, to the noble. Lord, Lord Stanley, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association which were most concerned about the matter.
I must apologise for what I have just said about the right to buy for the elderly. I did not mean to talk about that subject; I meant to talk about the right to buy in staircasing circumstances in rural areas. I was confusing the matter with the next debate. The principle is the same and the issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley.
What the noble Lord proposes to do as a result of his amendment being overturned is of course his affair. I understand that he is satisfied with the result. I can confirm that if the amendment affected only rural areas we too would be satisfied with the result. Unfortunately it does not, because the Government's solution to the problem of affordable housing in rural areas is to give the Housing Corporation the right to divert to rural areas some of its finances from other purposes in its approved development programme. By definition, that means that unless the Housing Corporation's approved development programme is increased by an appropriate amount, damage will be done to housing
1236
provision in urban areas. It is for that reason that we have tabled the Motion which, although it appears at first glance to repeat the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, does not do so. It refers only to the issue of maintaining investment in housing in urban areas.
The matter is of considerable importance to all who are concerned with housing and has been recognised as important by the Housing Corporation which lays great stress on its regional allocation policy (the regional allocation of its funds). The Housing Corporation has pointed out that there are unacceptably high levels of statutory homelessness. We know that 70 per cent. of the homeless are found in London and the metropolitan areas. For example, of the 12,000 people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, 7,500 are to be found in London; of the nearly 15,000 people in temporary accommodation, 10,000 are to found in London.
The Housing Corporation recognises that there are regions of stock shortage which need to be tackled with the highest priority. It has been criticised by the National Audit Office for its failure to target expenditure to areas of greatest need.
The difference in monetary terms of the proposals for repurchase schemes in rural areas may not be great. The Housing Corporation said that it did not expect the repurchase scheme to have a significant impact for some years. Nevertheless, unless specific provision is made in government expenditure plans to recoup for urban areas that money which they would otherwise lose as a result of the welcome concessions to rural areas, justice will not have been done; the aims of the Housing Corporation will not have been achieved; and the criticisms by the National Audit Office of the Housing Corporation will be reinforced. I appreciate that tomorrow we are to have the Autumn Financial Statement. I appreciate that it will be impossible for the Minister to anticipate that Statement, and I do not expect him to do so. However, I ask him to help the House so far as he possibly can.
I wish to ask first whether he agrees with the Housing Corporation and the National Audit Office on the importance which should be given to areas of greatest need in the distribution of government finance towards housing. I should like him to deny, if possible, that it was the intention of the Government, in proposing these Commons amendments, to penalise urban areas. I cannot believe that it really was. I should very much like to be convinced that it was simply an oversight or something which could not be dealt with until the Autumn Statement had been made.
If by any chance there is no help that he can give to the House, I should like him to urge his right honourable friends —even at this late stage —that in the Autumn Statement they should seek to protect the areas of greatest need from what would otherwise be a loss of financial provision for housing in urban areas. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13 but agree to Amendment No. 13A in lieu thereof. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as well as to Amendment No. 12, which I moved at Report stage.
I am prepared to accept for a trial period the Government's alternative to the amendment proposed at Report stage by your Lordships. This is not least because of the increasing concern and the actions that the Government have taken over rural housing during the past 18 months. We —or perhaps I should say they —have come a long way and it would be churlish not to accept that the Government wish to continue to improve matters. Assuming that my noble friend will repeat the Statement made by my honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard in another place, I have just three queries on that Statement.
First, my honourable friend Mr. Michael Howard said in another place that he had invited the Housing Corporation to increase its programme. Perhaps my noble friend will say whether that is a definite commitment by the Government and that the Housing Corporation has accepted it. Secondly, am I correct in thinking that the repurchase arrangements will apply to the current year's programme? If so, when will the Housing Corporation implement the arrangements? Time is not on our side; we are reaching the end of the year.
Thirdly, are the Government committed to a review of the scheme in 18 months' time, if there is sufficient evidence? I listened to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I had a feeling that there would be sufficient evidence, particularly in the urban areas if not in the rural ones.
That leads me to comment briefly on Amendment No. 13A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It suggested that the Government may be tempted to rob Peter to pay Paul, or whichever way it is. I do not believe that the noble Lord's concern is justified. I sincerely hope that it is not, but I suppose the noble Lord would suggest that I would say that anyway. He knows that I was originally concerned about the matter; he also knows why I withdrew the amendment.
I have to tell your Lordships that not all the 19 organisations that supported your Lordships' amendment at Report stage are as content as I am with the Government's scheme; so it will be essential to review these proceedings. I know that my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Jopling will do that in another place.
However, the main reason I do not wish to press the original amendment which your Lordships supported so strongly is that I only think that our amendment was better than that of the Government. I do not know. Therefore I strongly encouraged those organisations to accept the government scheme. I do so again today to your Lordships.
Finally, I reiterate my thanks to those organisations which asked me to move the original amendment, although at times I felt that I had a tiger by the tail; which tiger I now happily give to my noble friend Lord Hesketh and his advisers. I
1238
wish to acknowledge their courtesy and help throughout.
Lord Walston: My Lords, it is good that this compromise has been worked out. As other noble Lords have said, it is reasonably satisfactory. It is also certainly good that it has the agreement of all those who are concerned and knowledgeable about this very important matter. I think that we should be deluding ourselves if we did not realise that there are considerable doubts in many minds as to whether these new arrangements will deliver the goods in the way that we in this House wish them to and —judging by the speech of the Minister in another place —in the way that the Government wish.
I should like to emphasise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, made —that the whole matter should be reviewed within 18 months. It is very important that we should not give a blank cheque today and allow this compromise to be accepted and then forget all about it. We should not then say to ourselves, "Everybody has agreed, so we needn't worry any more". Although everybody has agreed, there are doubts and reservations. I hope the Government will be able to say firmly that within the next 18 months —by which time there will be ample evidence on whether the scheme is working or not —they will review the situation and that if necessary they will propose steps to put matters right if the scheme is not going right.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I wish to deal with one or two points which have already been raised. This is allegedly an acceptable compromise, although we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, say that not everybody is satisfied with it.
I wish to quote from an article in the Housing Associations Weekly which appeared on 10th November. That is a weekly publication which goes round all the housing associations. The article states:
"The government last week threatened to withdraw funding for shared ownership schemes in rural areas, forcing rebel Conservative MPs and housing lobby groups to abandon attempts to restrict staircasing".
It is stated later in the article:
"Barney Holbeche, parliamentary advisor of the NFU, said"—
he is much involved in these matters, as noble Lords will know —
'If we had successfully insisted on the amendment staying in the bill, of course it would be an option available to the government to turn off the tap for shared ownership in rural areas'
Moira Constable, director of the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust, said in a letter explaining her organisation's decision to drop its opposition: 'It does not take long 'or anyone to work out that, had the clause to remove the right to staircase survived, government would have needed no statutory powers simply to cut off Housing Corporation funding for rural shared ownership schemes.
'The powers to withhold consent for district councils to assist shared ownership also exist. We believe that there was a very strong risk that these powers would have been quickly invoked' ".
I hope the Government can say categorically that those strong-arm tactics were not used in getting this compromise on to the Marshalled List this afternoon. If they were used in any way, I think it

1239
would undermine the confidence that many people have expressed in this compromise. It seems to me that this is a workable compromise, provided that there can be assurances that the money will not come from the urban areas. I recognise that the Minister may have difficulty in saying that to the House today.
It is very important that we do not rob Peter to pay Paul in the way the money went in the other direction only a couple of years ago. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, among others, complaining about the way in which the Housing Corporation was forcing money from the rural areas to the urban areas at that time. I believe that in the Isle of Wight there were particular problems. There were certainly problems in the West Country, where I live. The Government are not against robbing Peter to pay Paul as a matter of principle. They have done it once in one direction and I hope they will not do it in the other direction in order to fund this scheme. I am extremely leery about the compromise that has been reached. We would be wise to support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in this matter.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should make it quite clear that at no time was I threatened and to the best of my knowledge at no time was the NFU threatened.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as I have not sat down, I should say that I have published material in front of me. I am asking the Government to deny that what is in the material happened. If that is the case, the Government are being seriously misrepresented.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have already had two extremely full and frank debates on the subject of rural shared ownership in this House and the matter has also been debated extensively in another place. The debates have reflected widespread concern about the provision of low cost housing for local needs in rural areas. This is a concern that the Government share. We all recognise the needs of people whose families are growing up and whose children now want to establish separate homes and of people who are coming in new to the local workforce such as our teachers and our nurses and others who are vital to the survival of the rural communities.
The question is how we can best achieve this. Following the amendment which was carried against the Government on Report, we held discussions with those most closely concerned to see whether we could come up with a better scheme than the one we had already, one which met the concerns that had been expressed in debate and which would at the same time meet the Government's objective of enabling those who wished and could afford to do so to own their own homes. I am happy to say that we have done so. I am most grateful to those people for their assistance. Without that I am sure that the scheme which we propose to operate would not have been nearly as focused or effective as it is and will be.
Let me recall the main elements that my honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning outlined in another place. He made it
1240
clear in terms that funds to operate the pre-emption scheme would be available from the Housing Corporation at the time they were needed. Let me repeat that assurance today. The Housing Corporation will fund on demand housing associations which want to repurchase properties within the scheme. It will do so with the full authority of the Government from the approved development programme. It will make it absolutely clear in writing when a property is first accepted into the scheme that the repurchase arrangements will apply. In the helpful words that my noble friend Lord Vinson used to me in discussion, there will be a site-specific undertaking indicating that the shared ownership housing on a particular site is subject to the repurchase arrangements.
The amount of Housing Corporation funding will normally be that which is necessary to enable the property to be resold for shared ownership, with the shared owner buying the same proportion of equity as the first shared owner had originally bought. Concern has been expressed that the Housing Corporation would expect associations to use their reserves to fund that repurchase. That is not so with one exception which I think is a very fair one. Where an association has in its reserves moneys clearly attributable to the purchase by the shared owner of additional tranches of equity, it is only right that the proceeds it has realised on that specific property should be ploughed back into its repurchase. Otherwise the Housing Corporation will fund the amount that is necessary for the association to return to the original proportion of equity. In appropriate cases the corporation will be prepared to make additional grant available so that the new purchaser can acquire a lower share. It may be, for example, that the initial purchaser acquired a 50 per cent. stake but that a subsequent purchaser for whatever reason can afford only a 25 per cent. stake. That is something which the Housing Corporation will look at very carefully in the light of all the circumstances of the time.
The Government strongly support the case for an expanding programme of low cost housing in rural areas. My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning showed that commitment when he invited the Housing Corporation to propose a significant increase in its special rural programme for rented housing to allow 1,000 approvals next year, 1,200 in 1991 to 1992 and 1,500 in 1992 to 1993. He invited it to identify separately for the first time a rural element within its low cost home ownership programme to allow 250 approvals next year, 300 in 1991 to 1992 and 350 in 1992 to 1993. None of these approval targets would be affected by the demand for repurchase funds.
Concern has been expressed that the funds the corporation will need to operate the repurchase scheme could erode the amounts available for rural housing. I assure the House that repurchase funds will not be found from the amounts set aside within the Housing Corporation programme for rented accommodation or shared ownership in rural areas. They will be additional to it. The funds will form part of the approved development programme.

1241
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed his concern this afternoon that this measure would be at the expense of the housing needs of the inner cities. Housing associations have been in the forefront of improving conditions in inner city areas from the earliest days of the movement. They have achieved much but there is still a great deal to do. The Housing Corporation first designated urban stress areas to which investment would be targeted in 1985. This has been reflected in its allocation policies. Since they were first designated, stress areas have received annually well over 70 per cent. of the corporation's investment programme. That is a substantial proportion. The Government have already demonstrated their commitment to the housing association movement by planning significant increases in the Housing Corporation's capital expenditure.
I must not anticipate the Autumn Statement which is to be made tomorrow, but I have no doubt that it will further demonstrate the continuing and substantial commitment on the part of the Government. On our best estimates the cost of the pre-emption scheme in the middle of the next decade will be less than one half of 1 per cent. of the ADP —that is an ADP whose level will have been set in the knowledge of the way in which the pre-emption scheme works. I must make it absolutely clear that this has been allowed for in our expenditure provision. This expansion of the resources available for schemes in rural areas is perfectly compatible with a continuing and increasing programme of activity in the inner cities and elsewhere. We believe it would not be wise to make separate provision for it.
The noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Walston, drew your Lordships' attention to the review of the pre-emption scheme. It has been suggested that 18 months could be too early and a period of two to three years possibly more appropriate. The reason for that possibility is that the two main points of review which are essential to assess are the amount of land that is available and the success of the pre-emption scheme in its workings. I suggest that within a period of 18 months not a great deal will have happened. However, the department can always be convinced by reasonable argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to strong-arm tactics. I was very grateful for the references of my noble friend Lord Stanley to the fact that he had not come across any such tactics. I must say that during the tortuous negotiations that I entered into on this issue I felt that I was at the end of strong-arm tactics rather than the reverse position that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, described.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must ask the noble Lord whether he will specifically deny the allegations that were made in the quotations that I read out.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have been involved in the negotiations for a considerable length of time and I deny categorically that any of the occurrences
1242
that have been described happened. We shall of course implement the scheme and I shall direct the Housing Corporation immediately, so that if cases can be brought forward this year they can be dealt with. Finally, the crux of the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made was whether we were robbing Peter to pay Paul. I can say that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may take a moment to deal with the relatively minor point of the trial period before moving on to the major impact of what the Minister has just said.
The problem with the trial period, as will be obvious, is that many landowners will delay acting on the new provisions in order to see how the trial period works. The effect, paradoxically, will be that the trial period will not work. However, we are grateful to the Minister for his indication that the Government are still open to argument and that the period and nature of the trial are not necessarily set in stone.
The important part of what the Minister said lies in his description of the way in which the authorised development programme of the Housing Corporation will be set. I appreciate, and have appreciated from the outset, that he could not anticipate the Autumn Statement. He said that the authorised development programme will be set in the knowledge of the scheme which is proposed by the government amendments and that the sum required has been allowed for in the authorised development programme. I do not believe that I could ask for more than those statements. It is clear that our arguments have been recognised. It is clear from the final words of the Ministers speech that it is not the Government's intention 1hat housing in urban areas should suffer even marginally from the concessions which have been made for rural areas.
In the circumstances, although what has been said is to be found not on the face of the Bill but only in statements from the Government Dispatch Box, it would be wrong for me to seek the opinion of the House on the matter. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 13A, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
14 After Clause 146, insert the following new clause—
Removal of exception to the right to buy
".—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy) paragraph 11 (dwelling-house particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age etc.) shall apply to a dwelling-house as thereunder determined by the Secretary of State only where such a dwelling-house was completed before the date of

1243
Royal Assent, or such other date thereafter as the Secretary of State may specify.
(2) The operation of subsection (1) above in relation to paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 does not affect the operation of that paragraph in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the repeal comes into force unless, at that time, no notice in response had been served under section 124 of that Act (landlord's notice admitting or denying the right to buy).
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes)."
15 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Insert the following new clause—
Exceptions to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age
'.—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (exceptions to the right to buy), for paragraph 11 (certain dwelling-house for persons of pensionable age) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"11.—(1) The right to buy does not arise if the Secretary of State has determined, on the application of the landlord, that it is not to be capable of being exercised with respect to the dwelling-house.
(2) The Secretary of State shall so determine if and only if he is satisfied that the dwelling-house—

(a) is particularly suitable, having regard to its location, size, design, heating system and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and

(b) was let to the tenant or a predecessor in title of his for occupation by a person of pensionable age (whether the tenant or predecessor or another person).

(3) The Secretary of State shall for the purposes of this paragraph disregard the presence of any feature provided by the tenant or a predecessor in title of his.
(4) An application for a determination under this paragraph shall be made within the period for service of the landlord's notice under section 124 (notice admitting or denying right to buy).
(5) This paragraph does not apply unless the dwelling-house concerned was first let before 1st January 1990."
(2) Subsection (I) above does not apply in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the day on which this section comes into force.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the Housing Act 1985 (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes).'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15 in lieu thereof. At the same time I should like to speak to consequential Amendment No. 16; Lords Amendment No. 17 and the Commons reason numbered 18 for disagreeing to it; Lords Amendment No. 19 and Commons Amendment No. 20 in lieu thereof, and Lords Amendment No. 26 and the Commons reason numbered 27.
This group of amendments is about the right to buy as it concerns dwellings particularly suitable for elderly people. The Commons amendment proposed as an alternative to Lords Amendment No. 14 fulfils the commitment that I gave at Third Reading to bring forward amendments reflecting the intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Report and carried against the Government.
1244
Amendment No. 15 would give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the task of making determinations to exclude from the right to buy individual dwellings which are not sheltered housing but which are particularly suitable for people of pensionable age. Such determinations could only be made, however, in respect of existing housing. Housing for elderly people which was first let on or after 1st January 1990 would be within the right to buy unless it was part of a sheltered scheme with special facilities. I believe that we have arrived at a reasonable compromise on the basis of the amendment which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Report.
The Secretary of State's jurisdiction to make determinations excluding existing properties from the right to buy will extend to elderly persons' housing in small communities which has been provided with some form of call system but does not fit the definition of sheltered housing. If an existing dwelling is particularly suitable for occupation by elderly people, and has been so let, the Secretary of State will be required to exclude it from the right to buy. I think that that goes a long way towards meeting the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, about housing in rural areas which is almost sheltered housing.
Amendment No. 15 brings within the right to buy dwellings which are suitable for elderly people but have been let for occupation by a disabled person. Amendment No. 15 thus supersedes Lords Amendment No. 17, which derives from an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, at Third Reading. The noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy (de Knayth), also drew the attention of the House to the position of disabled people who are not of pensionable age but have been denied the right to buy on the ground that their homes are particularly suitable for elderly people. Amendment No. 15 meets the point, because the Secretary of State will only be able to determine that a property should be excluded from the right to buy if it is particularly suitable for persons of pensionable age and has been let for occupation by an elderly person.
The consequential government amendment, Amendment No. 16, provides for the new provisions to come into force on a day appointed by statutory instrument. As the Bill stands they would come into operation on Royal Assent, which would not allow enough time to set up arrrangements for landlords to apply for determinations.
Commons Amendment No. 20, in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 19, provides that in Scotland, as in England and Wales, housing for elderly persons other than sheltered housing first let before 1st January 1990 should not be sold if the Secretary of State so determines in respect of a particular dwelling. I should explain that there is no reference to the Secretary of State on the face of the Bill because, in relation to Scotland, he already has the function of making determinations under Section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Amendment No. 26 was consequential on the original proposal to repeal Section 69, and is therefore no longer necessary.

1245
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, commented at Third Reading:
"I think that we have reached a satisfactory result of quite complex negotiations and a complex debate on the Floor of the House." —[Official Report, 1/11/89; col 317.]
I believe that the House as a whole will share his view, and I commend Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 20 to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15 in lieu thereof. —(Lord Hesketh.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the situation is now far better than it was when we debated the Bill and the right to sell applied to houses that had been adapted for the elderly. That was a point about which many of us felt very strongly.
I have only one regret and that is that Section 11(5) of Amendment No. 15 does not apply unless the dwelling-house was first let before 1st January 1990. That means that the number of houses covered by the exemption is limited. After January 1990 houses that are built or specially adapted for the elderly, involving a great deal of investment by the local authorities, will be available for sale like any other housing.
Although I accept that in the circumstances my noble friend Lord McIntosh obtained the best compromise, I cannot let the amendment go by without saying that I feel that it is a great pity. It means that there will be a severely limited and reducing number of houses designed specifically for the elderly which can be passed on to others without passing out of the system entirely, as will happen if they are allowed to be sold. That will be the situation after January 1990.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to see that the Government, in Commons Amendment No. 15, have removed all reference to dwellings particularly suitable for disabled people, because by the removal of my Amendment No. 17 disabled people would still have had considerable difficulty.
I am delighted by the assurance of my noble friend that from now on disabled people will have the right to buy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will appreciate the depth of interest and concern which my noble friend Lady Birk has expressed. She has been involved in the frequent debates on the issue which have taken place over the past decade. She was involved on the first occasion on which the Government were defeated on this matter in a Division in your Lordships' House. But she confirmed what I confirmed; namely, that, as the Minister reported in his speech, it is not perfect. There are still things which we should like to have done, but we believe that we have come to a conclusion of the matter which is substantially better than that originally proposed by the Government. In those circumstances, I shall not oppose the
1246
amendments that the Commons have proposed to our amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
16 The Commons proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Clause 164, page 146, line 3, after '146 insert lException to the right to buy in case of certain dwelling-houses for persons of pensionable age)'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 16.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 16. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
17 After Clause 146, insert the following new clause—
("Amendment to exercise of right to buy with respect to certain dwelling-houses
(1) Schedule 5 to the 1985 Act (which deals with exceptions to the right to buy) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In paragraph 11(1)(b) the words "or physically disabled person" shall be omitted.
(3) The amendment by this section of the said paragraph 11(1)(b) shall not affect the operation of that paragraph in any case where the tenant's notice claiming to exercise the right to buy was served before the coming into force of this section, unless at that time no notice in response had been served under section 124 of the 1985 Act; landlord's notice admitting or denying the right to buy.)
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, no account shall be taken of any steps taken under section 177 of the 1985 Act (amendment or withdrawal and re-service of notice to correct mistakes).")
18 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—
because it is inconsistent with the Amendment offered in lieu of the Lords Amendment to insert a new Clause (removal of exception to the right to buy) after Clause 146.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 18.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 18.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
19 After Clause 154, insert the following new clause—
"Sale to secure tenants of houses provided for persons of pensionable age: Scotland
(1) Section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (Secretary of State's power to authorise refusal to sell certain houses provided for persons of pensionable age) shall apply to a dwelling-house only where such a dwelling-house was completed before the date of Royal Assent, or such other date thereafter as the Secretary of State may specify.
(2) Any application under subsection (2) of that section received by the Secretary of State before the date of commencement of this section but in respect of which no offer to sell under section 63 or notice of refusal under section 69(4) of that Act has been served by the landlord by that date shall be treated as if it had never been made."
20 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
Insert the following new Clause—
'Sale to secure tenants of houses provided for persons of pensionable age: Scotland.
In section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (Secretary of Slate's power to authorise refusal to sell certain houses provided for persons of pensionable age) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection
"(1A) This section applies only to houses first let on a secure tenancy before 1st January 1990.".'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20 in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20 in lieu thereof. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
21 Schedule 5, page 173, line 35, leave out "In Schedule 11, in" and insert "Schedule 11 (tribunals) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2 (jurisdiction) the following paragraph shall be inserted at the end —
"(c) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4A above,"
(3) In"
22 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Line 5, leave out '5' and insert '4'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this is simply a drafting amendment to correct an erroneous cross-reference. It ensures that a ratepayer's appeal against a completion notice served on him by a charging authority can be heard by a valuation and community charge tribunal. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22 to Lords Amendment No. 21.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22 to Lords Amendment No. 21. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
23 Schedule 11, page 219, line 18, column 3, at end insert —
"In section 177, subsection (2A) and in subsection (3), the words "(but not for the purposes of subsection (2A) above)". Section 17A. In section 178, in subsection (1), the words "and 177A"."
24 The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment—
Line 6, at end insert 'and subsection (5)'
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 24 to Lords Amendment No. 23. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AS A CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
25 The Commons proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
Page 223, line 4, at end insert—
'1988 c. 4. The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988. In schedule 6, in paragraph 10, sub-paragraphs (6) and (7).'.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 25.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 25. —(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
26 Schedule 11, page 222. line 55, column 3, at beginning insert—
"Section 69."
27 The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason —
because it is inconsistent with the Amendment offered in lieu of the Lords Amendment to insert a new Clause (Sale to secure tenants of houses provided for persons of pensionable age: Scotland) after Clause 154.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27.—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Habitat and Species Protection: ECC Report
4.3 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Habitat and Species Protection ( 15th Report, HL Paper 72).
The noble Earl Said: My Lords, in August last year the Commission of the European Communities proposed a draft directive on the protection of natural and semi-natural habitats and wild flora and fauna. I understand that this was the subject of three working group meetings last autumn, but it was not tabled at the November 1988 Environment Council as had been expected. The history of the document is laid out on page 2 of the evidence of the Department of the Environment in the report that is before us this afternoon.
Sub-Committee F of the Select Committee on the European Communities felt that the subject raised issues of real importance to the environment of the Community and also one of considerable public interest. The sub-committee therefore resolved to undertake an inquiry, but agreed at the start that it should not concentrate on the detail of the Commission's original draft because it seemed likely that this would be subject to considerable amendment before it was ultimately considered in Council.
Those invited to submit evidence were asked to consider their evidence with regard to two issues.
The first was the extent to which the United Kingdom and other member states of the Community were meeting their obligations under the existing Birds Directive and under international conventions; namely, Bonn, Berne and Ramsar. The second issue upon which witnesses were invited to give us their views was the role that the European Community should play in the protection of natural and semi-natural habitats of wild flora and fauna within the Community.
For the inquiry our specialist adviser was Mr. Robin Grove-White and we owe a great deal to him for his assistance. I believe that I saw the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gwydir, in his place a moment ago. I note with regret the unfortunate omission of his name from the list of noble Lords who took part. He was a valued member of our committee and his name was inadvertently dropped from the list which appears in Appendix 1. The individuals and organisations who submitted evidence are listed in Appendix 2 and their evidence is printed with the report.
The sub-committee also visited the Commission of the European Communities in Brussels and paid a visit to Italy where we met our opposite numbers, the Environment Committee of the Italian Senate. That was an extremely useful visit because it brought us face to face with problems encountered in a southern member state of the European Community which are of a totally different nature from the problems of conservation and protection of the environment with which we are familiar in our own country. A description of the visit to Italy is found in Appendix 4 and a transcript of our evidence session at Brussels is found on pages 165 to 203.
It became clear in the course of our inquiry that wild flora, wild fauna and their habitats are now facing increasingly acute pressures in many parts of the European Community. That was clear from the substantial body of evidence provided by, among others, the Institute for European Environmental Policy, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and Wildlife Link and from the Commission's own observation:
"that the range of wildlife and natural ecosystems present in the Community now is less than it has been for thousands of years; and the rate of decline and loss is probably greater than it has ever been".
In that respect there is a difference between the northern member states and the southern member states of the Community. In northern Community centres agricultural intensification, land drainage and similar developments have already led to diminutions of habitat, reduction in the ranges of wild species and population losses affecting both animals and plants. It has placed many supposedly protected areas under acute pressure. In the southern member states by contrast greater biological diversity persists; but it is here that industrial and agricultural changes are now producing new and severe pressures on the natural inheritance of wild plants and wild animals.
That difference was amply displayed during our visit to Brussels when we saw the CORINE
1250
programme which has been supported by DG XI. That programme has identified more than 5,000 sites which are considered to be of European significance. The majority of those are in southern member states.
The report looks first at the evidence on international conventions and the Birds Directive. Paragraphs 16 to 23 deal with the Berne Convention, paragraphs 24 to 28 with the Birds Directive, paragraphs 29 to 31 with the Ramsar Convention and paragraph 32 with the Bonn Convention. I shall leave noble Lords to read the evidence that we received on those international conventions. The report next looks at the evidence received from witnesses on their opinion of the appropriate role for the European Community in this field.
I can say that there was universal consensus that Articles 130R and 1305 of the Single European Act now provide an undoubted legal basis for Community environmental measures,. It was put to us by the Institute of European Environmental Policy that the real issue now is how responsibilities are to be shared between the Community and member states.
The important issue of habitat protection versus other Community policies was also raised. It was noted by our witnesses that developments that are being sponsored by the Community's structural funds —notably, the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the guidance section of the Agricultural Fund —are now a growing source of concern for environmental reasons. Examples are given in the evidence.
The significant point is that spending under the structural funds is to double between 1989 and 1993. That will involve a total expenditure of around the equivalent of £35 billion. It will account for more than 30 per cent. of the Community's budget by 1993. Given the impact that so me of these developments will have, particularly in the southern member states where, as I have already pointed out, there is greater richness but also greater sensitivity and more threat to the environment, this is a matter of great importance. The committee did not receive evidence that sufficient attention was being paid to that point.
We noted that the Commission has recently drawn up what are called "internal instructions" which are aimed at screening member states' proposals for plans, programmes and projects under the structural funds. These have come into force since April this year in a non-obligatory way; but the Commission's staff is quite inadequate to deal with the proper monitoring of the environmental impacts of this very large expenditure.
Witnesses also brought before us evidence to show that the Community's agricultural policies have already led throughout the Community to serious losses of habitats and species and that the pressure of Community-funded agricultural change is now escalating in the southern states and in Ireland. The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) drew particular attention to gaps in Community and national legislation which concern the protection of individual landscape features such as hedges and walls, as well as broad tracts of semi-natural

1251
vegetation. Some of the evidence that we heard emphasised the importance of the conservation of the wider countryside, particularly in the southern member states.
We noted that, in the European Parliament's debate on the implementation of the Berne and Bonn Conventions, the issue of hunting dominated. In Italy we found that this issue divides the nation. While we were there a message was brought from the Straits of Messina, where migrating honey buzzards were crossing that morning and being shot as they reached landfall on the toe of Italy. That brought home to us very vividly the position of conservation in Italy.
Our witnesses felt that it was essential to have Community funding to encourage and support nature protection both by national authorities and individuals. That was regarded also by DG XI as an essential ingredient in the successful completion of a programme for the protection of the environment.
I move on to the opinion of the committee, which was convinced that, as we say in paragraph 71:
"Few aspirations of European Community environmental policy are more important than that of protecting the range of wild species and their habitats existing within the Community's boundaries".
The committee believes that member states, including the United Kingdom, now face a choice in that field: either member states equip themselves through their own domestic administrations with a genuinely European perspective or they will find it forced upon them by popular pressure. That will lead the Community to step in to fill the gap.
The committee was persuaded that there is a certain level of protection appropriate for Community action. Certain lists can be obtained of species and habitats that require protection at Community level. At this time of rapid social and economic change the Community must give higher priority to the conservation of its remaining wild flora and fauna. The committee believes that it is important that the Community, whose spending under the regional, social and agricultural guidance funds has been responsible for major losses in habitat, should allocate a proportion of these resources to the development of adequate protective programmes. We noticed with regret that within our own administration there appears to be no mechanism for assessing the environmental impact of developments supported by structural funds.
The committee accepted that in the Berne Convention, to which this country is a signatory, there are serious weaknesses. But we believe that it is a useful forum for discussions at the international level on general conservation, on lists of species that require conservation and on habitats generally. We believe that the Berne Convention provides a valuable forum. The first of our major recommendations is that the new directive should make the full implementation of the Berne Convention a Community obligation for all member states.
The committee believes that the Commission itself should prepare a comparatively short list of species and habitats which are genuinely of European
1252
significance. We believe that this system, developed through the special protection areas proposed within the directive, would lead to designations of super-protected sites —sites that receive both national and Community-level protection. We say in paragraph 91 that we believe that this new system of designations:
"should confer a degree of absolute protection".
We have been taken to task for that infelicity. We discussed it later in committee and decided that what we meant to say was that for such sites any potentially damaging development proposals should be vetted both at Community level and at national level. That means that there must be a Community apparatus for assessing environmental impacts and matching national procedures which would be applied to this key group of Europeanly —if that is a possible word —significant sites.
The committee also felt that the progressive erosion of habitats in the wider countryside was a subject that needed to be addressed in the new directive. We believe therefore that the directive should specify that the governments of member states should develop explicit policies and programmes for safeguarding substantial areas of semi-natural vegetation. We accept that there should be periodic reports from member states to the Commission to show how the directive is being implemented.
In paragraph 98 we deal briefly with the Community Inspectorate I note that the issue of the environmental agency has moved very far since we first looked at this subject. Last night it was debated in another place, so I do not think that I have anything else to say on that matter. However, I think that one point can be made with emphasis; namely; the value of non-governmental organisations within the system that is developing in the European Community. Without the evidence from non-governmental organisations I believe that our committee would not have been able to discover all that it needed to know about the impact of the structural funds and the interrelationship between nature conservation and development in other member states of the European Community. It is only through papers provided by NGOs that we were able to discover these facts. We believe that the NGOs have played an important part in developing public pressure leading to the proposal of this directive. We also believe that well-informed NGOs are and will be effective in helping the Community to achieve conservation goals.
It is a feature of the inquiries of this Select Committee that we are often shooting at a running target. In this case the initial target was more evanescent than it normally is. In Appendix 3 to our report we printed the draft as it was available to us. I have since had sights of various later versions dating from September, October and into November. The revisions materially affect both the substance of the directive and its annexes. It is clear that a very different draft is now in existence. The early November version that I have seen has an amended Article 2 which refers to:

1253
"giving priority to the habitats of species for which the Community has special responsibility and to types of natural habitat of Community importance which constitute the shared natural heritage of member states".
That is exactly the approach that your Lordships' Select Committee felt was appropriate. We feel that it reflects the notion of subsidiarity as it is outlined in the Single European Act.
The next Environment Council meeting is on 28th November. I look forward to the contributions of the 10 other Members of your Lordships' House who will speak after me this afternoon. In particular I hope for a firm statement from my noble friend Lord Reay of the Government's intentions with regard to advancing this extremely important European directive in the forthcoming Environment Council under the presidency of France.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Habitat and Species Protection (15th Report, H.L. Paper 72). —(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Earl has done his usual comprehensive job in presenting our report. Indeed, he leaves very little for other members of the committee to say on it. I thank him for the way in which, in his capacity as chairman of the committee, he conducted the inquiry. He is a constant inspiration to the members of his committee. His tact and patience with those of us who may not see the point quite so quickly as he does is commendable.
The United Kingdom has a better record on nature protection than most other members of the Community. We have reserves of experience and expertise which could enable us to give a lead at European level. Because of our experience we are more aware also of what needs to be done in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the Community. My few remarks will be aimed at highlighting the need for effective international action to safeguard our wildlife heritage.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act was a step forward but it has proved ineffective even in its protection of special sites; and for the wider countryside it does nothing. In its recent report, Losing Ground, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation draws attention to the serious degradation of our countryside since the Second World War. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation, as most noble Lords will know, is the parent body of 48 wildlife trusts. It has therefore detailed nationwide information on changes in the countryside —the loss of flower-rich grasslands, of heathland, and of broadleaved woodland. The destruction of hedgerows is accelerating. Official figures show that annual losses of hedgerows of 2,900 miles per annum between 1969 and 1980 have increased to annual losses of 4,000 miles per annum between 1980 and 1985. In terms of loss of habitat it is easy to see what a very serious figure that is.
In my own county of Cambridgeshire, the Cambridgeshire Wildlife Trust reports that loss of rough grassland is forcing barn owls to hunt on
1254
roadside verges where over 20 per cent. of the population die in motor accidents each year.
Our common lands, many of which are valuable havens for wildlife, are being eroded year by year for development. The protective legislation we were promised in the election manifesto of 1987 is still not in sight depite many questions which have been asked on the subject. Even those sites designated for special protection are not safe. A Parliamentary Question in another place on 22nd June this year gained the information that between 1st April 1984 and 31st March 1988, 687 sites of special scientific interest had sustained damage. That is about 14 per cent. of the total. That is an underestimate because the monitoring staff of the Nature Conservancy Council is inadequate due to underfunding. We have to assume that were we to have the correct figure of damage to sites of special scientific interest it would be much higher.
None of our protective designations gives total protection. In paragraph 64 of the report the Department of the Environment sets out its reasons for supporting this position. Nevertheless, it is obvious from much of the evidence that we were given that stronger protection must be available if we are to prevent further destruction of our natural heritage.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is particularly concerned about the threat to wetland habitat in Europe generally by drainage for agriculture, and in the United Kingdom by development of estuaries. Some of the bird species wintering in our estuaries represent a significant proportion of European populations and we have an international duty to protect them. No fewer than 57 of our estuaries qualify for designation under the Ramsar Convention or as special protection areas under the wild birds directive. Yet so far only 16 have been so designated.
Eight years have passed since the introduction of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Yet of the seven sites that were identified during the passage of that Act as being suitable for marine nature reserves, only one has since been designated. Question after Question on the progress of the second marine nature reserve —I have another Question down for tomorrow —produces evasive and unhelpful replies.
We are now contemplating the dismembering of the Nature Conservancy Council. That is the body responsible for nature conservancy in the United Kingdom. It is the body which has gained us such a good international reputation. Dismembering it in the way that is being proposed is bound to weaken the cause of conservation in this country. By this country I mean the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland, Wales and probably Ireland also, although I know less about that.
It is at a time when Europe is likely to look to us for guidance. As the noble Earl said in his introduction, we are fortunate in having a number of articulate non-governmental organisations without whose efforts our home scene would be so much worse. However, their efforts need to be backed by national and international legislation, I hope that the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will be

1255
able to tell us today that the Government intend to take a firm lead and to demonstrate that their commitment to environmental protection is real and not just words.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I should like to add my word of thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and to the members of his committee for the time, the effort and the travelling that they have put in to produce this thoughtful and constructive report. There is a need for this habitats directive and I welcome it. This is of course just another directive but its guidelines are a necessary step to be acted on or ignored as this nation or the other nations feel.
It is nevertheless a stepping-stone to a progress that started perhaps with Ramsar only about 17 years ago, so recent is our realisation of the damage that we have been inflicting for more than a century. It is a worry, but understandable, that in spite of directives, laws and public concern much damage is still being caused by ingrained habits and beliefs, as exampled by the continuing destruction of birds in Italy to which the noble Earl referred.
The report rightly highlights the lack of laws and of the money to enforce them. The Home Office used to tell us that it is no good passing laws unless you can enforce them. But in connection with conservation matters laws are the essential starting point over the whole field of conservation. Not every provision in them immediately achieves its purpose but some do and the prohibitions gather force. The law is the adequate starting point of adequate protection. That is the lesson and that is the goal to seek. As regards money, the directive will not be effective unless there are adequate funds to implement it. The best practicable proposal may be, as the CPRE recommends, that a resolution should accompany the directive requesting the Commission to propose appropriate mechanism.
The committee comments acidly on the apparent lack of enthusiasm and narrow European outlook of Her Majesty's Government as compared with the NGOs who,
"have shown a helpful range of expertise and concern, complementing, and in some respects exceeding, that of the Government and the Nature Conservancy Council."
It continues that it was only through the expertise of the NGOs that it could discover what it needed to know about the structural funds and nature conservation in the member states. It adds later that it believes that well informed NGOs have been effective in achieving Community conservation goals.
That is quite true, but that comparison is unnecessary and unfair. The officials have to advise their Minister on what progress is practicable through our jungle of laws and regulations from other ministries, and their Minister has to advise his colleagues on what is politically practicable. The conflict between the lively strength of the NGO and the apparent inertia of the ministry is democracy at its very best. It is the organised voices of the people that must lead the way.
1256
Finally, the report quotes in paragraph 79 the words of Nigel Haig of IEEP. He said,
"nature conservation is not a purely national concern".
The committee observes that some habitats straddle frontiers and are affected by trans-boundary pollution of rivers and catchment areas in more than one country. Nigel Haig's simple, telling statement of the obvious now has wider implications than he would have believed possible when he made it.
Up to now there has been friendly co-operation and an exchange of ideas on conservation with the nations behind the Iron Curtain. But now the Iron Curtain is not there and that co-operation must now turn to action —action to persuade our own new, free neighbours to adopt some of the proved and successful provisions of the conventions. The new parliaments will have to pass new laws. This should be a deliberate campaign and as always, as the report encourages them to do, the NGOs should lead the way. The tools are there in the IEEP, WWF, EEB, ICBP, IIED and of course others, including, one would hope, Martin Holdgate of IUCN. If they have not already done so, let them all get together now, call a meeting and make a plan of action to visit, to make permanent contact and to produce draft headings for new laws so that for conservation at least the whole of Europe will have the same policy and a common aim.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, from these Benches I join the two previous speakers in congratulating the noble Earl and the Select Committee on presenting to your Lordships a very clear and persuasive report. It is perhaps just as well for our debate this afternoon that the Select Committee, anticipating that there would be considerable amendment to the draft directive, has looked at its work in general terms. That enables us to take a broad view of this draft directive and this proposal. That, too, is just as well, in view of the extremely short notice at which this item of business has been included in today's agenda.
If I may, I will pick up and rehearse a few of the points already raised by the noble Earl as pegs, as it were, on which to make my own observations on behalf of this party. First, I should like to say a word about the scope of the directive to which the Select Committee has given some attention.
In its evidence the CPRE has drawn attention to the obvious fact that wildlife and its habitats are really part and parcel of consideration of the wider environment and it would have liked —and I sympathise with it —to have had a broader ranging directive. After all, in 1981 Parliament embraced both aspects of environmental protection in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. But on balance, and with some reluctance, I agree with the Select Committee that if the directive were to be broadened it might create difficulty in getting agreement from all member states, and that there is advantage in having a narrower focus because that makes more impact. As the noble Earl said, safeguarding substantial areas of semi-natural vegetation and protecting particular landscape features, such as hedgerows, are examples of where both aspects of

1257
the environment can and should converge. I accept that and it is referred to in paragraph 94.
Secondly, is a new directive necessary? We learn that the Government tend to think that it is not. The Select Committee has expressed the clear opinion that a fresh directive is needed to "galvanise activity" —I quote from paragraph 85 —to give teeth to, and provide funds and legal backing for, the full implementation of the existing environmental nature protection conventions. In particular, there is the reference in paragraph 17 to the Berne Convention. We are told that that convention especially has not proved fully effective for full action by all member states to match the urgency of the situation.
On this matter of urgency, the Select Committee has pointed to the pressing need for further action now, because of the growing pressures on land use and, in particular, because of the influence on development of the structural funds, particularly in those areas which are still a haven for wildlife.
At paragraph 91, we are told that as regards certain habitats there is a need for absolute protection —a need for top priority —and that to balance that need against the need for economic development in those areas simply is not good enough. At paragraph 11 the committee described the accelerating decline of habitats and loss of species as "serious". That point is underscored very strongly by the Royal Society for Nature Conservation.
At paragraph 103 the committee has further pointed out the time limits of a new directive in view of the fund of goodwill within the Community for nature conservation and in view of the marked expansion in the European economy which is likely to follow the implementation of the Single European Act in 1992 and onwards.
The last and most significant point which I wish to raise in this debate, is that the Select Committee has underscored the part which the United Kingdom is playing and should in future be playing in this matter. Let me say at once that the Select Committee's advice to your Lordships to endorse the new proposed directive in principle rather than to "beef up" the existing conventions and the birds directive has firm support from these Benches. I believe the psychology which underlies the case for such a fresh initiative —a shot in the arm so to speak —is absolutely right.
Conversely, I am bound to say that on my reading of the evidence given by the Department of the Environment, I found the cautious, even reluctant and somewhat negative attitude of the British Government disappointing although not entirely surprising. There seemed to be little sense of the urgency of the situation on a Community level. Indeed, I seemed to detect a hint of indifference in regard to the European dimension.
As one who has been considerably involved in environmental matters between 1980 and 1987 —and I admit that I am now somewhat out of date —I am well aware of the initiatives taken by the Government beginning with the 1981 Act onwards. Those were steps in the right direction and of some,
1258
the Government have good cause to be proud. I can accept the opinion expressed within the Community —and I am referring to paragraph 74 —that the United Kingdom system of protection is:
"one of the best in Europe".
There are two points to be made; one is a caveat or qualification of that record and the other a deduction to be drawn from it. The caveat —and here I am echoing the points made in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol —is that our system is by no means perfect. It is not sufficiently protective of certain habitats and species. That is illustrated by the absence of control in conifer forestation which has destroyed much semi-natural vegetation; the destruction, as the noble Baroness said, of several hundred SSSIs within the past two years alone; and the sorry story of the marine nature reserves about which she and I have been much concerned over the whole period of the past nine years. Moreover, we understand from the report that progress in designating special protection areas for birds and in listing wetlands as required under the Ramsar Convention has been slow. Those are indicators of the inadequacy of United Kingdom action and legislation despite our relatively good record.
Britain could also benefit from the galvanising effect to which the Select Committee refers and which the draft directive purports to provide. There is no cause for complacency let alone indifference on our part.
My deduction from the good aspects of the Government's record, which I fully acknowledge, is, as the Select Committee has suggested, that we have an opportunity and a duty, if we are really committed Europeans, to offer our experience and methods to other nation states. It is my contention, as it is of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, that such a constructive contribution cannot effectively be made from a position of semi-detachment. To carry conviction, the United Kingdom must submit itself to the same constraints, as well as receiving the same benefits, as all other member states. The British Government must be involved along the general lines adumbrated in this directive.
That leads me to wonder and to ask how seriously the Government are taking their part in Community action in that area. The Prime Minister has waxed eloquent about global pollution and its future consequences. However, I am less convinced as to the Government's concern about the degradation of the rural countryside in the here and now. I hope to hear a positive answer from the Minister that the Government accept that in this matter of protecting wildlife, national frontiers and sovereignty may be quite irrelevant to the actions which are necessary on a wider front.
If your Lordships will forgive a slight frivolity, few species of birds on the British list are British birds; they are European birds and some are international birds. They need to be protected wherever they go, wherever they land and wherever they fly. The dimension is either European or international.
To conclude, I am sure that the one aspect on which we all agree is the vital importance of the

1259
matter which the Commission's draft directive addresses. It concerns not only the safeguarding and survival of threatened and endangered species but the need to buttress certain human values which are themselves under threat in the face of the inexorable advance of material development.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I was very glad to take part, as a member of the environmental sub-committee, in this exceptionally interesting and important investigation, in which we were very capably guided by our chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and greatly helped by our specialist adviser, Mr. Robin Grove-White, and our clerk, Mr. Tom Mohan.
The inquiry was particularly appropriate and timely because the Commission and Her Majesty's Government appeared to have fallen out and to be at loggerheads. The Commission had produced a draft directive which was too rigid and centralist and, as so often happens, had done so without adequate informal discussion with governments and experts in this sphere, especially those in this country. I do not believe that that was a sensible way to proceed. It frightened some governments, especially ours, with the spectre of habitat and species conservation run entirely from Brussels.
However, Her Majesty's Government went rather to extremes in their reaction. There was talk of bureaucracy run mad and in a speech on 18th November 1988 the then Environment Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said:
"We must keep control of the future of our own countryside and of our wildlife in our own hands",
and even suggested,
"the addition of the Brussels bureaucrat to the official pest list".
Those remarks were hardly judicious or well thought out and naturally upset the Commission. Consequently, our sub-committee's task was to see whether a Community directive was appropriate and necessary, and, if so, to try to bridge the prodigious gap between the Commission and Her Majesty's Government and put the train back on the rails. That involved us in a short but illuminating visit to Brussels.
We took a great deal of evidence from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and many others. The almost universal view expressed to us was that we ought to have a Commission directive on habitats and that it was urgently required. We received a mass of evidence about the very serious and continuing loss of habitat all over Europe and the threat to a substantial number of bird, animal, fish, reptile, amphibian and plant species. That loss is serious enough in our own country. To give just one example, the Prime Minister herself pointed out earlier this year that we had lost 120,000 miles of hedgerow in the past 40 years.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the loss of hedgerows, which I agree is very serious, is largely due to the common agricultural policy which has
1260
resulted in the encouragement of large prairie areas of wheat or barley with no hedges in between?
Lord Moran: My Lords, the noble Lord has a point and the common agricultural policy has certainly contributed to the loss. That loss is in fact accelerating at present. We have our system of sites of special scientific interest, but the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has spoken about that and, as the Nature Conservancy Council has pointed out, 117 of them were recently damaged or destroyed in a single year. There is continuing damage to habitats, dramatically illustrated in the Royal Society for Nature Conservation review Losing Ground, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. That paper assembled information from all over the country and I strongly commend it to those of your Lordships who have not yet seen it.
There are serious threats to our remaining prime habitats; no fewer than 30 estuaries are threatened by projected developments. The Government have been desperately slow in declaring Ramsar wetland sites. They undertook originally to complete their listing by the end of 1986. They have failed to do so. Out of 150 recommended sites they have declared only 40. Is it that they do not wish to impede development on the other 110?
Our record in Europe may be relatively good, but in itself it is nothing to shout about. Denmark appears to be a conspicuous example of good practice but in other member states the situation is often much worse than in the United Kingdom. In Belgium 50,000 birds are legally trapped every year, with perhaps another 50,000 being trapped illegally. The shooting of migrant birds still takes place on a vast scale in southern Europe. During our inquiry we learnt about the widespread consumption of thrush paté on the Continent.
It is clearly very important that we should strive to improve matters. Should we do this by way of the Community or nationally as suggested in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness? We in the sub-committee had no doubt that it must be done through the Community, if only because it is already so heavily involved in changing the face of Europe through the common agricultural policy, through the structural funds and to some extent through the move to a single market.
I was personally very disappointed by the attitude of the representatives of the Department of the Environment who gave evidence to us. They struck me as somewhat negative and passive, showing few signs of taking an active line to secure the right sort of directive. Their line seemed to be that all that was necessary was for member states to implement fully the existing conventions. That is clearly important. I believe that France and Belgium have still to ratify the Berne Convention. But it is manifestly not enough. I hope things have changed and that the Government will now be prepared to take a more positive line.
Enormous damage has been and is being done to important wildlife habitats by development projects—mainly but not exclusively in southern Europe —financed by the Community's structural

1261
funds. These funds will increase massively in the next few years when there will be huge transfers of resources from northern to southern Europe. It is essential that we balance this with proper protection of important habitats and endangered species. For this a new Community directive is indispensable.
I hope that our report has pointed the way towards a sensible compromise. I hope too that Her Majesty's Government will now take a much more vigorous and constructive line on this question. Some progress has, I believe, been made under the French presidency. I have not seen the later drafts mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, but I am glad that they sound to be on the right lines. It is important that agreement should be reached soon on a text and that the new directive should enter into force with the minimum of delay.
Finally, there is the key question of money. A directive can only be effective if adequate Community funding is provided to enable it to be properly implemented. Public opinion in this country and elsewhere in the Community is rightly very much exercised about the conservation of our wildlife heritage in Europe. I am convinced that a habitat directive is badly needed to do this. We must look to member governments, and particularly to Her Majesty's Government, to bring a realistic but effective directive into force as quickly as possible.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, this is an excellent time to be debating the role of the European Community in protecting habitat and species because environmental issues remain high on the political agenda and all around us we are besieged with advice as to what should remain national concerns and what should become Community concerns. The Commission proposal which we are debating—on which our committee reported —reflects rather neatly the Conservative dilemma about Europe. We are all concerned with habitat destruction and threatened wildlife. The question is whether protection policies should be implemented at the national or Community level.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said, it would not be fair to the Government to suggest that they misjudged their initial response to the Commission's proposals. Certainly it was proper to expose the technical and practical weaknesses of the Commission's draft. We drew attention to those in our report. We were also considerably struck by the weight and quality of the evidence presented to us cataloguing the loss of wildlife and habitat throughout the Community. In the face of that evidence the plea that those were national concerns satisfactorily dealt with in this country was hardly destined to strike a popular note. Fortunately we have all begun to learn that when a voice from Europe insists that our beaches should be clean, our water pure and our countryside protected, public reaction is overwhelmingly one of approval. If it happens to be a bureaucrat who is telling us to save our heathland rather than a politician, that is of no interest to most of us who are simply grateful that at least someone is saying it.
1262
Our committee therefore concluded that the European Community should have a positive role in assisting in the protection of wild species and habitat. There is a clear legal basis for a new Community initiative to do just that, and we appreciate the political imperatives of such action. I do not believe that we have set ourselves apart from mainstream opinion about the proper role of the Community in our national affairs. Inevitably, governments and parliamentarians become preoccupied with the fine questions of Community competence and national law; of directive and statute, of annexes and committees. I do not wish to trawl over this ground except to say in passing that the Commission ought to appreciate that it makes its task harder by presenting what amounts to a blank cheque for signature.
The draft Commission document we studied, upon which governments and voluntary organisations must rely, failed to attach the key annexes which are to specify the species of animals and plants to receive the various degrees of protection set out in the directive. However, I should like to concentrate instead on the two related concerns: first, what is the best mechanism for achieving the satisfactory conservation of wildlife and habitat, and, secondly, what is the role of the voluntary sector and the non-governmental organisations contributing to conservation policy? That point was emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
The committee was careful to note what is good and successful about conservation policy in this country. We have elaborate legislation to protect species, particularly the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We have authoritative statutory agencies which act on a good science base. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said in her speech, not even this system —the envy of some of our European colleagues—provides the complete protection of SSSIs, as recent NCC annual reports have shown. The strength is in its emphasis on co-operation through the use of management agreements backed up with enforceable protection measures should agreement break down.
I believe we must recognise that such a system of management agreements needs the resources for it to be effective. Until very recently the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission have seen real increases in grant. I am disturbed that this trend appears to be changing, with cuts in last year's allocation. It is not just the effectiveness but also the credibility of the voluntary approach which is endangered when insufficient resources are available to make the policy work.
I should also like to emphasise, as did my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, the committee's observations that field sports in this country are closely regulated and close seasons and quarry regulations are widely respected. Much of the early debate about this proposed directive focused on its possible impact on country sports. I hope that policymakers in the Community are beginning to understand that properly managed field sports can play a vital role in conserving habitat and indeed wildlife.

1263
Any sensible proposal must recognise the interests and the conservation value of legitimate field sports, particularly when the annexes are considered. As their European organisation, FACE, reminded the committee, field sportsmen have as much interest as the rest of us in habitat protection. Indeed, all the responsible voluntary organisations with an interest in wildlife and conservation have a role to play in conservation policy. The committee noted that there are non-governmental organisations in this country which are significant landowners and land managers in their own right.
I have a particular interest in the voluntary sector as president of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, which mobilises an army of over 60,000 volunteers who carry out voluntary work on a practical conservation basis. They are perhaps one of the most striking examples of the interplay in British environmental policy between government and non-governmental organisations. Community policy must encourage this co-operation, not seek to replace it; and rather than fear bureaucratic intervention into the countryside the Government should seek to show to the Community that such intervention is not necessary for the effective operation of conservation policy.
Equally, I have been impressed by the argument of many leading voluntary organisations that the habitat directive could have a special role to play in conserving the wider countryside outside existing specially protected areas. I believe that we must work towards a coherent Community policy which provides the right balance of agricultural incentives to encourage farmers to manage their land in a way which provides positive opportunities for conservation while maintaining farm incomes and the production of food. Farm and conservation policy cannot possibly be considered in isolation from each other. Farmers are the custodians of our wider countryside, not government agencies.
I believe that the Government should view the proposed habitat directive not as an unwelcome interference in their national conservation policy but as an opportunity to meet public concern and persuade the Community of the sense of the principles on which British conservation policy is founded. Perhaps the Government accept that it will no longer do for them to say, "We're all right, Jack", or rather, "We're all right, Jacques". Let us work with our European partners to produce a sensible, effective directive which maintains the best of our conservation practice but puts an end to the disturbing catalogue of habitat destruction which concerns us all.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, members of the sub-committee who have preceded me expressed many of the thoughts that I wished to declare myself so I can be very brief. The issues addressed in this report are rather different from those found in reports customarily circulated to your Lordships' House by the Select Committee. They are normally issues such as employment, Community trade, finance, agriculture and the like. Nevertheless, I
1264
believe that the subject matter of this report is of real importance.
It is important because the priorities are changing. For the past generation and more, governments in the developed world have seen as their prime responsibilities issues such as social security, health, industrial prosperity, employment and so on. Nobody disputes the continuing significance of those issues but their relative importance has now changed as the environmental consequences of those policies become more clearly understood.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the European Commission, reflecting the anxieties of citizens throughout Europe as they were expressed very recently in the European elections, has produced a draft directive which is the subject of our inquiry. Harsh things have been said about the Commission's proposals in the course of the debate this afternoon. I remind your Lordships that the sub-committee welcomed the fact of the Commission's initiative and I certainly agree with that opinion.
The Commission has acted in response to genuine concern at both the popular and the scientific level at the deterioration of the natural environment which has been taking place. In the past governments of member states preferred in many cases to deal with these matters by national measures. But, as has been pointed out, the passage of the Single European Act and the changes which have been made to Article 130 of the Treaty of Rome now give the Community a clear legal responsibility to act.
This is not only a question of popular sentiment, of scientific evidence and legal niceties. It stands to reason that the protection of fauna and flora can only be undertaken effectively on an international basis. We already have in existence a number of international conventions on these matters and the Commission is building on that base.
Another particular reason for Community action is the fact that the Community itself has decided to spend large sums of money through the structural funds. We have a direct responsibility to ensure that this is done in ways which avoid environmental damage. The report explains that the sums involved are now very considerable by any measure and that they will be used in regions of special sensitivity; for example, in the Mediterranean countries.
So I see no difficulty in accepting the idea of a Community initiative. Indeed it is very appropriate. It came as a disappointment to me and to others on the sub-committee that the Government originally expressed some unhappiness, even distaste, for the Commission's proposal. I am glad to learn that the Government may now be adopting a more moderate approach.
I also believe that there are some strong reasons why our own country should take a positive attitude on this question and should involve itself actively in the formulation of Community policy on habitat and species protection. There are a number of reasons for suggesting why this is so. First, because of the enthusiasm and knowledge of our predecessors for the past century or more, we are lucky to have in Britain many voluntary organisations and individuals skilled and dedicated in this field. These

1265
experts and specialist bodies exist on a much larger scale here than in most other European countries, which accord them a good deal of respect.
It seems important that we harness this excellent human resource to the preservation of the European environment at a time when it is most needed, which is now. By doing so we should be able to make a significant contribution not only to a more knowledgeable treatment of the subject but to the development of Community policy. There are many ways in which this might be done since the Community does not seem to have decided yet what form the collective efforts and the directive should take —whether, for example, the Community should have an executive agency responsible for nature conservation, perhaps something like our own Nature Conservancy Council, an advisory body to help the Commission in its work or a centre for sharing scientific information.
It would be particularly unfortunate if our own authorities were to miss the opportunity to play a leading role at the formative stage of the Community's policy and in the evolution of its institutions in the environmental field. Too often in the past our hesitation has deprived us of the influence which we could have brought to bear at the crucial moment on the Community's affairs. In my opinion we are now at or fast approaching this very point in Community environmental policy. I am anxious that we should not miss the boat on this occasion.
I do not wish to leave the impression that I can give uncritical support to the Commission's proposals. There are, on the contrary, a good many uncertainties and some defects in what it has proposed so far, and our report describes them. But these faults can be put right by active participation. They cannot be corrected by hesitancy and opposition. To achieve the result that we are looking for will also require a more positive attitude of mind than we detected in some of our official witnesses, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has already said.
I suggest another reason why we need to be sympathetic to the idea of action by the Community. On the visit paid by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and myself to Italy it became evident how much southern member states of the Community will benefit from joint action by the Community —action which they are unable to take themselves. There are often profound social reasons in Mediterranean countries which make it difficult for national governments to act. Community governments working together can act as a means of social change in bringing about the protection for the environment which we all wish to see.
For all these reasons I submit that the report is an unusually important one. I have pleasure in supporting the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in its presentation to the House, and I congratulate him on his remarkable chairmanship of our sub-committee.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount Blakenham: My Lords, standards of conservation vary greatly between individual
1266
European Community countries. One of the most important themes of this absolutely excellent report, on which I congratulate my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, is the growing awareness that conservation of species and habitat needs to be viewed on an international and not just a national basis. I should like to give an example of what I have in mind. In paragraph 28 of the report the experience of Duich Moss is referred to. Duich Moss is the wintering ground of the Greenland white-fronted goose. The report says:
"The experience of Duich Moss (Islay) in Scotland in 1985, when a Commission official visited the site to investigate a possible case of non-compliance, was regarded by the Scottish Office as having created unwelcome and unnecessary political controversy".
If that unwelcome visit had not been made the wintering ground of the white-fronted goose is unlikely to have remained protected.
The Government have done a great deal for conservation in the United Kingdom in the past decade. This makes me more sorry to read of the apparently unenthusiastic response to the EC initiative. It has been widely welcomed by the voluntary conservation bodies and could greatly help the raising of conservation standards throughout the Community. The existing international conventions carry no legal sanctions. A well thought through Commission directive could provide an important impetus to improve European conservation.
If I may speak personally rather than as a representative of the Nature Conservancy Council, of which I am a member, I believe that this attitude, described in the report as somewhat parochial, is reflected in the Government's plans to split the Nature Conservancy Council into three independent agencies at a time when the United Kingdom voice in Europe needs to be heard loud and clear. I hope that the Government will think again both about this point and about their attitude to the proposal for a European Commission directive.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I congratulate the chairman and members of the committee on an excellent report and also on their choice of a well qualified adviser, Mr. Robin Grove-White, who I am sure played a major part in drawing up the report. It is more than just a report of the House. It is a work of reference. I am grateful to the noble Earl for reminding us about the Bonn Convention, the Berne Convention, the directive on birds and the Ramsar Convention. They are all described fully and explained in this excellent document.
I have been much heartened by the speeches in the debate. I speak as chairman of Wildlife Link, which gave evidence to the sub-committee. I am an amateur among a great many professionals. But virtually a year ago, before the meeting at which the directive was to be discussed, I took a delegation to see the then Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It was one of the most disappointing occasions that I can remember. We got absolutely nowhere. I came away from there bitterly disappointed.
Members of the committee and noble Lords who have spoken tonight have rightly praised the work

1267
of the NGOs in this country. I have a high regard for their expertise. I listen to many of their representatives on a monthly basis. They have not only patience and drive but real knowledge. They fully understand the restraints, such as Treasury restraints, under which Ministers must operate. They know that Ministers cannot deliver the impossible. However, when we went to see the noble Earl, I do not believe that we were asking for anything other than common sense. The Prime Minister went to the United Nations and offered £100 million to save the rain forests—goodness knows, I support that action. That is part of an international effort, but we are surely interfering in the affairs of Brazil. Is it not right that we should also play a major part in the affairs of the EC; and not just the EC but the whole of Europe? The Continent still looks to us for a lead and finds our lack of enthusiasm puzzling. Continental environmental groups are desperately dismayed by our response to date.
The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to their visit to Italy. I found that part of the report very interesting indeed. The noble Earl described vividly the problems faced by conservation groups in Italy, particularly in regard to the shooting of honey buzzards over Sicily. Many brave people in Malta, in Sicily and in other parts of southern Europe are trying to do their best to stop this happening. They need support from this country and from bodies such as the RSPB which they hold in high regard.
The report was printed before the break up of the NCC was announced, which in itself adds to the concern about the future. Our European colleagues regard the Nature Conservancy Council as an excellent model to follow. I wonder what they are thinking now. In addition, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, the NCC's budget has been cut by 5 per cent. in real terms. When the report was published it received wide press coverage. All of it was favourable. This issue has enormous public support so it cannot harm the Government to be a little more forthcoming. They could do with a few friends at court just now. The public would go along with a change of heart by the Government on this matter.
It is refreshing to note that in its report the committee said —and it has been mentioned by many speakers this evening —that not everything is perfect in our own back garden, despite the rather self-satisfied remarks of the present Minister responsible in such matters in a letter to me dated as late as 22nd September. I think that I am right in saying that Mr. David Trippier is now in charge of these matters. He is a Minister for whom I have a very high regard. He played a major role in developing the enterprise agencies in this country. I am sure that he is a good choice to represent Britain in Brussels at the forthcoming meeting.
However, I have here his letter to me in reply to my request for a change in government attitude as regards the directive. It reads:
"I have to say that I was a little surprised to see your letter because I had the impression that the Government's position on the draft Directive had been spelled out on numerous occasions in the past: in correspondence, Parliamentary Answers, and in submissions to the House of Lords Sub-Committee Enquiry into habitat protection".
1268
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who said how disappointed he was with the evidence given by the Department of the Environment to the committee. Yet, in September, we were still following the same line. Further on in the letter Mr. Trippier said:
"Frankly it seems to me that you are confusng two separate issues here —one is what is needed in Europe as a whole; the second, which may or may not be the same, is what is needed in the UK. Our impression has been that your prime objective" —
this is a reference to Wildlife Link's objective —
"in this whole exercise has been to improve the standards of nature protection in southern Europe, where the pressures for harmful development are greatest and the protection mechanisms weakest".
That, of course, is absolutely true.
"If you take the view that a more advanced system is needed in the UK where we already have a much more established record of achievement in the conservation field we can debate that issue. But I see no reason why we need to conduct such a debate in Brussels where the emphasis should be on what member states can, and should, do collectively".
I believe that the Government still have—although I hope that it is changing —a too glossy view of what is the situation in this country; they are too self-satisfied in the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, gave some statistics to the House, and other noble Lords have done likewise, about the problems which we face in the UK at present. I shall not read out any more figures.
As regards SSSIs, evidence given to the committtee showed that about 389 such sites had been damaged during the past two years. That, however, does not mean to say that they have been written off. Indeed, only a few have been lost altogether. But if 389 have been damaged, that is a staggering statistic.
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the loss of heathland, especially in Dorset. Lowland heathland is an exceptional habitat of which the UK has more than any other country in the world. We hold almost 40 per cent. of the lowland heathland remaining in western Europe —yet much of it has been disappearing because of the developments which have been taking place around Bournemouth and elsewhere. It is the home of the Dartford warbler, the nightjar, the woodlark and many internationally rare reptiles.
Heathland is threatened as never before from development proposals, agriculture, forestry and lack of management. Between 1830 and 1980 72 per cent. of the UK's heathland was lost. We have heard about the loss of the wet grassland and about the lack of funding to deal with such matters.
We have drawn such matters to the attention of the respective Ministers, expecially the problems concerning heathlands and fish farming in Scotland. I must say that when she came to one of our meetings Mrs. Bottomley was concerned and well-informed on the subject. But, of course, she has now been moved elsewhere so we must try again. However, we have Mr. Trippier who has accepted an invitation to come and meet Wildlife Link representatives on Thursday. I shall certainly be placing a copy of the Hansard report of this debate before him. I hope very much that he has read and inwardly digested the report before us and that this time he will visit Brussels with a rather more open-minded outlook.

1269
As has been said by my noble friend Lord Hunt, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was a major step forward and greatly welcomed at the time. However, one glance at the CPRE's leaflet, which I imagine Members of the House have received during the past few days, entitled The Changing Face of Britain must cause considerable concern and serve to remind us of many of the problems to which I have referred. Moreover, Wildlife Link recently circulated a similar broadsheet to all MPs, MEPs and many Members of this House —I believe that over 700 documents were sent. It is entitled Europe's Wildlife Under Threat. Therefore we are doing our best in the voluntary sector.
I think that we should also pay tribute to the Greeks. As I understand it, they played a major role in getting the draft directive off the ground in the first place. Presumably, therefore, they want action. It is now feared in many quarters that the original proposals may be so watered down in an effort to reach agreement as to be—I shall not say useless—not as effective and they might be.
The noble Earl referred to some proposals which he has seen. He reassured the House that these were rather along the lines of those contained in the report. If that is the case, then I reserve judgment upon the matter. I hope that it will be so and that what is proposed will not in fact be watered down.
The French now hold the presidency and the meeting of Ministers to which reference has been made is due to take place on the 28th November. However, for various reasons no firm agreement can be expected at that time because, among other things, the annexes must still be approved. Moreover, the matter must be returned to the European Parliament which debated the issue a month or two ago.
I shall say to our representative—indeed, I shall tell him personally when I see him—that we hope for a more supportive approach by the UK representatives at the meeting and that this could indeed be a crucial matter in achieving the progress which is so urgent.
No one should accuse Members of this House, or members of the Select Committee—the report of which is before us —of dragging their feet. Indeed, every speech which has so far been made has been critical of the Government's approach to date and has pleaded for a more forward-looking attitude. The problems and many of the solutions are set out in the report clearly and lucidly, and in good time. The timing is good. There is perhaps one slight quarrel concerning paragraphs 88 and 89 where one could perhaps be a little critical and say, "We only want a short-list of the major areas to which protection should be given". I think that many organisations —the RSPB and others —would say that they hope that such a list would not be too short and that we do not cut out many birds and other species which are on the danger list.
I believe that mention was made of thrushes. I think that I am right in saying that the song thrush used to be our fifth or sixth commonest bird. However, it is now our sixteenth and that is because the French like thrush pâté. Surely we can do
1270
something to try to stop this happening. It is so appalling.
As has been said by my noble friend, we on these Benches are proud to be associated with the report. We pray that it may persuade the Government of the United Kingdom to change course. It is still not too late. However, tomorrow it just could be.
5.28 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to join with all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in adding my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, to all his colleagues, to his special adviser, to his clerk and to all of those who have given evidence to him, upon what is a most excellent and timely report. Unusually, I allowed myself the indulgence of reading it the right way round this time; in other words, I started with the minutes of evidence and did not turn to the report itself until I had almost completed reading the minutes.
I started by reading the "disappointing" and "parochial" evidence from the Department of the Environment. Those are not my words, they are those contained in the report. I then went on to read the fascinating evidence from the non-governmental organisations in this country. I was especially fascinated by the visits of the committee to Brussels and to Rome. I was also interested to read the final anguished evidence from the representatives of the Commission, who politely described themselves as being "puzzled" by the British Government's attitude and the response to the report.
As many Lords have made clear, there can be no doubt about the need and the danger. There has been the danger of increasing damage to our habitat and to our species in Europe ever since the Industrial Revolution, and probably ever since the agricultural revolutions which preceded it. The danger started earlier in Britain than elsewhere because our agricultural and industrial revolutions took place earlier. Therefore, the damage has gone much further and the need for protection is much greater.
In its evidence on page 107, the CPRE refers to the losses. Indeed, these have been referred to by other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and my noble friend Lady Nicol. The Countryside Commisson, in its annual report published a few months ago, referred to the fact that we have possibly 10 years left to redeem, or at least to put a halt to, the damage which has gone on and which continues to go on to our countryside, to our habitat and to our species.
Particular attention should be paid to the damage brought about by European Community activity, the effect of intensive agriculture under the auspices of the common agricultural policy, and the effect, which will probably worsen considerably, of the intensification of the structural fund; in other words, of development projects, especially in southern Europe, and therefore in those parts of Europe which are underdeveloped and which retain a habitat that is closer to the original than that of the traditional industrial areas of this country.

1271
There has been unanimity in the House about the increasing need for protection and the fact that the dangers are worsening. There has also been unanimity about the inadequacy of the protection provided at the moment. Reference has been made to the advances resulting from the Wildlife and Countryside Act, but, after all, that Act was intended only to give effect in this country to the Berne Convention, which has still not been ratified by France and Belgium. The problem with such conventions is not that they are not worthy in themselves —I agree with the idea that in many ways it would be desirable for such directives not to second-guess the conventions but to reflect their best parts —but their enforceability. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, made that point effectively.
Even where there is national legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which purports to give effect to the provisions of the Berne Convention, the inadequacies of that Act have become clear over the eight years since it was enacted. It still has the idea that protection should be restricted to specific sites (the SSSIs). Many noble Lords have referred to the fact that even the specially protected sites, such as the SSSIs, are being damaged and threatened and have not been protected adequately against development.
However, the second and more important point is that it is now being recognised that if we are to protect habitats and species in Europe we must go beyond designated sites and have some sort of overall protection for the countryside as a whole. That is the view that Denmark has taken. Although it should not be held to the exclusion of the protection of specific sites, it is a valuable addition which has become part of policy-making in the 1980s. It is not part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and it deserves the Government's attention. Greater attention should be paid to it in the draft directive.
I am not at all satisfied that even the legislation that we have, let alone the conventions to which we have adhered, provide the necessary protection. Our inability to implement the Ramsar Convention was referred to again by my noble friend Lady Nicol. I am not convinced by the argument commonly used by government that planning controls are adequate to provide the necessary protection. I am reminded of an excellent short story by Fay Weldon. She describes a woman moving from London to live in the country. She has at the end of her garden a wood of which she is fond, but it is scruffy. It is then threatened by having a ring road built through it. She recognises that she will not get anywhere by filling the villge hall with protestors or marching to county hall, or with any of the normal planning protections, so she first cleans the wood and the pond in the middle of it and she then stocks it with rare orchids, toads and newts and other examples of protected wildlife; and she wins. There may be a lesson in that for us all.
I repeat that I am not happy with the protection that is given even in this country, let alone that given in other European countries, to our habitats and the species in those habitats. The complacency which shines through the evidence from the Department
1272
of the Environment is unworthy of it and should not be repeated in current thnking. I was disappointed to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that the Minister responsible still shows that degree of complacency and isolationism from European problems.
The other issue that we must address is that of funds, because it is clear from the report and the evidence that the funds available to DG11 to implement any policy, even if the directive were to be enacted, are inadequate. There is some discussion about the need for a common environmental protection agency. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has been advocating such an agency in this country for a number of years. He has now converted me to that idea. The need may be for a Community environmental protection agency and for some sort of Community inspectorate, or at any rate meta-inspectorate, to provide a common level of enforcement. That idea is not as outrageous as some people may think, as the report points out. The European Community's fisheries directives are enforced by an inspectorate which was set up largely at the instigation of the United Kingdom Government and so there is nothing especially outrageous about that idea.
When I think about funds on a wider scale, not just to appoint Brussels bureaucrats, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, so rudely calls them, but to provide compensation where that is appropriate, it seems to me that those funds are readily available. If the common agricultural policy and the structural fund contribute heavily to the damage, they should contribute heavily to putting it right. A diversion from common agricultural policy funds to protecting our environment might not just do good on its own; it might have the additional advantage of restricting the excesses of the common agricultural policy. It would also have the advantage of reflecting the view that the polluter pays.
I am convinced that the Labour Party will support the need for a revised proposal. No one is defending the wording of the draft. The principles behind the draft directive must be accepted, as they have been in the House this afternoon. They are the principles that the protection of our habitat and species should all be to the highest standards available anywhere in Europe; that there should be legal protection for specific areas; that the special protection areas proposed in the draft should be set up to a timetable, which, in the end, in default of individual government action should be enforced by the European Community; that in addition to special protection areas there should be protection of the wider environment; that there should be a link between protection of the habitat and the landscape as a whole, to which a number of noble Lords have referred; and that there should be public information on the objectives of protection of the environment and what progress is being made towards it.
Although the proposal needs to be revised, it does not need to be weakened. It nees to be strong enough not just to protect the environment in southern Europe but to deal with the deficiencies in our legislation and the policy-making for the environment in the United Kingdom.

1273
These are government obligations. It is the responsibility of government in their response to the Commission and the directive, and in legislation. As has been said on a number of occasions, the report is timely, first because of the meeting on 28th November. When we look back at the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in Oxford in November last year we realise how far there is to go before we reach a proper recognition of the needs of the environment by the Government. I was astonished to read that speech in the light of the fact that it was made only two months after the Prime Minister's speech to the Royal Society when she said, quite rightly, that we do not have a freehold on this planet but only a full repairing lease. It would have been as well if that very valuable insight had been reflected in the noble Earl's speech in November 1988.
There is an opportunity for Mr. Trippier, when he goes to the meeting on 28th November, to put matters right. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, when he replies, will be able to indicate that he will do so. In the negotiations which take place at the official level, leading up to that meeting, and in Brussels and elsewhere there is also an opportunity for the Government to put right the very damaging impressions which were given by the submissions of the Department of the Environment to the committee.
Above all, we are promised a green Bill in the Queen's Speech. If the green Bill follows the bad examples of the past 12 months, as evidenced in the report, that Bill will need drastic amendment and strengthening. Judging from the debate this afternoon, I am sure that your Lordships' House will be in the forefront in seeking to remind the Government of their responsibilities.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the other members of Sub-Committee F on producing this excellent report and providing a most stimulating, knowledgeable and fairly like-minded debate.
It is an important feature of our parliamentary procedures that they require such detailed scrutiny of Commission proposals. The result is that no other member state has had the benefit of such an extended study by experts, taking evidence from all sides of the argument in Europe as well as the United Kingdom, and producing at the end of their work a substantial and balanced report showing all the evidence on which it was based. If we add to that the high regard in which the United Kingdom system of nature protection is held, as the committee itself records in paragraph 101 of its report, it is easy to understand why it is that the committee recorded in paragraph 75 that other member states have been looking to the United Kingdom to give a lead in the negotiations in Brussels.
So let me say straight away, to clear up any misunderstanding, that the Government wholeheartedly support the principle of Community action in this field —that is, provided that, as
1274
required by Article 130R of the Treaty of Rome, it is clearly understood that Community involvement must bring some added value over and above what member states can achieve by themselves. We believe that it can. So too does the select committee, and I shall return to the theme of added value later.
Before going into the detailed provisions of the draft directive, I should just like to dwell a little on the story so far, both in Brussels and at home, particularly in the light of the committee's criticism —a criticism which was reflected by several noble Lords —that the Government have been "unenthusiastic" and "parochial" in their approach to the prospect of Community action in this field.
When the Commission first published its text, it is certainly true to say that we approached it with caution rather than enthusiasm. My noble friend Lord Craigton explained very well why this was so. However, claims that we were the villain of the piece, pulling against the wishes of the majority of member states, are exaggerated. I believe that our initial lack of enthusiasm was soundly based. The report shows in paragraph 28 that the Community's previous involvement in nature conservation (the 1979 Birds Directive) has sometimes created tensions between the Commission and member state governments. The report also records in paragraph 66 the Government's view that the Commission's draft on this occasion was presented prematurely —without any prior consultation, without eight of the 11 annexes, and containing a number of features which had not been properly thought through. The absence of the annexes was particularly regrettable because, while some of them relate to matters of technical detail, most are of fundamental importance to the thrust of the directive. They set out matters such as the number of sites to be designated as special protection areas, and the list of species to be protected. Even now, over a year later, most of the annexes are only at early draft stage and are not generally available —the rest are not available at all. This is most unfortunate when they contain so much that is of fundamental importance to the directive.
As a result of this unsatisfactory situation, there has been a virtual stalemate in Brussels, with the Commission adhering to the original draft, while all —and it really is all —member states have consistently expressed deep dissatisfaction with both the content of the text and the continuing absence of the annexes. Indeed, dissatisfaction with the situation has spread to the European Parliament, which has refused to take a view on the environment committee's somewhat premature report on the grounds that the proposal is incomplete.
Clearly then, a means of breaking the impasse has to be found. I believe for three reasons that there is now light at the end of the tunnel. In the first place, the Commission has been showing greater flexibility —more over the past couple of months than in the whole of the previous year. It seems to us no coincidence that this greater flexibility has followed the publication of the select committee's report. We know that the report was circulating in capitals throughout Europe within a month of publication, and we believe that both the select committee's criticisms of the Commission's

1275
draft—which it described at different points "unsatisfactory", "unwieldy and overambitious", "rigid and mechanistic" —and the constructive suggestions which the report contained have had their effect.
Secondly, the current French presidency has tabled an alternative text as a basis for further discussion. I understand that a copy has now been deposited in the House and we shall be tabling a supplementary explanatory memorandum as soon as possible. Our initial reaction, like that of most other member states, is to regard the French text as an improvement on the Commission's draft. The purely numerical aproach to site designation, for example, seems to have been dropped, while the new proposal on environmental impact assessment is much less ambitious. However, most member states have tempered their general welcome for the French text with the reservation that a full and proper assessment of the draft still cannot be made in the absence of substantive proposals on the annexes.
The third encouraging factor is that the Commission is at last beginning to make progress on the annexes. Drafts have begun to appear over the past month, so there is a genuine possibility that we may have a full proposal to consider before long.
Against that background I can say that the Government feel that there is now a real basis on which to move forward and that we are looking to play a leading role in this process. I believe that the recommendations in the select committee's report are very helpful and I think that the best use of my remaining time would be to run quickly through the principal elements which the committee recommend should be incorporated in any directive.
First, on the Berne Convention, which was referred to by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cranbrook and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we accept that full implementation should become a Community law obligation. In one sense I regret that this should be necessary because it might have been hoped that ratification of the convention should in itself mean that full implementation would follow as a matter of course. But the reality, as I think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, is that two European Community member states have still, after 10 years, failed to ratify the Berne Convention. Furthermore, the fact that funding is not available under the convention to aid compliance is a serious deficiency. More effective implementation of the Berne Convention is therefore one area in which Community involvement might bring added value to member states' nature conservation efforts. I should add however that we shall continue to regard Berne as an important convention in its own right, and that we are currently participating in a number of ongoing initiatives to improve its effectiveness.
Secondly, we accept the proposition that it is possible to identify sites and species of international, as compared to purely national, importance. As I have stressed, the annexes are still being formulated but examples might include endangered species such as monk seal and important habitats such as The Wash. Taken together these habitats and species
1276
could constitute a European heritage in whose well-being the Community might take a particular interest. The question of the degree of protection that might be afforded is one to which I shall return in a moment.
Thirdly, as regards the annexes, on the basis of the text we have before us we support the select committee's proposal that the intial list should be brief. By brief we mean of manageable proportions and relating firmly to matters of truly European importance. If they are simply an aggregation of all that member states are already protecting, then the notion of added value is lost. Moreover one might find that the annex would include a species which was rare in one country, yet very common, perhaps even treated as a pest, in another. I believe that the pine-marten is such a case. We share the select committee's view that the contents of the annexes should be nominated by member states on a national basis, and subject to unanimous voting. Subsequent revision should be made by an adaptation committee, acting on qualified majority and relying on scientific qualitative data for its decision-making.
We are endeavouring to press this line in Brussels but at present the French text envisages greatly extended annexes. Commission involvement in site selection and what we regard as unacceptable powers for the proposed committee might lead, for example, to site designation from Brussels against the wishes of the member state concerned. So there is some way to go on this front yet.
As regards the degree of protection to be afforded to sites designated at the European level, the committee already recognises in paragraph 78 that there is a balance to be struck between economic, industrial and conservation objectives. Our planning system takes that into account and the relevant procedures which apply to all SSSIs are set out in Circular 27/87 to local authorities.
The Commission directive would seek to give designated sites permanent and absolute protection. The select committee talked about a degree of absolute protection and my noble friend Lord Cranbrook had more to say this afternoon about what he would like that to mean. I am grateful for the clarification that he brought to the matter. I can say that we are willing to explore to see what scope there might be for extending in some cases the degree of protection currently available under British law. However, much will depend on the content of the annexes. Plainly the greater the scope of the annexes, the less the degree of protection which could be considered for everything in those annexes. At present the Commission drafts are very lengthy.
This is a difficult area and it may be that another way forward will have to be found. One alternative and perfectly logical approach might be for the extended annexes to stand as they are, provided that they were based on sound scientific data, but for member states to make their own assessment of what measures were needed to protect species and habitats of European significance within their own national boundaries. I do not say that this is necessarily a better approach, but it shows that there are different ways of resolving this problem. We have to be

1277
flexible in our negotiating position so that we can consider alternative approaches. Once again of course this underlines the need for a complete proposal —text and annexes —to appear on the table as soon as possible.
We support the committee's comments about the need for pooling of conservation experience and expertise, and the need for regular reporting of performance under the directive. These are both features of the drafts under discussion.
As regards the question of providing a degree of protection outside the network of protected sites, many member states have expressed their opposition to the inclusion of any measure of this kind in the directive, on the basis it would seem that it is enough to get the site designation procedures in place. It seems unlikely therefore that anything beyond an obligation expressed in fairly general terms will feature in the final text of the directive. I recognise that this is less than the committee may have sought, but perhaps the important thing is that the subject is appearing in the draft directive at all. However, we remain ready to consider any firm and practicable proposals to do more.
We are of course always prepared to consider proposals for improvements to domestic British procedure regardless of developments in Brussels.
Let me turn now to the question of funding the directive. The matter was raised by my noble friend Lord Craigton, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and other noble Lords. Our position on this is that we know very well from our own experience that the costs of management agreements —my noble friend Lord Norrie referred to these —can be considerable, and we understand therefore why some member states are saying that they will not agree to the text of this directive unless the financial provisions are clearly established in advance. The ball is therefore very much in the Commission's court to produce a proposal. I understand that work is now being done on this. Meanwhile the department's officials are in contact with NGO representatives to discuss possible approaches. We shall certainly consider carefully any suggestions that may come forward, although I stress again that this would not form part of the directive itself.
There have been suggestions that NGO representatives should sit on the adaptation committee in Brussels. We very much endorse the Select Committee's view that the NGOs have a considerable store of knowledge on conservation matters and we very much value our contacts with them. Indeed only yesterday the officials in the department met representatives of the key organisations in this field to discuss both the draft habitats directive and the question of protection in the wider countryside.
However, I do not think that there is any likelihood that NGO representatives will become directly involved in the work of the adaptation committee itself because such committees normally consist of Government representatives only. However, the Commission has made it clear that it will expect
1278
to convene its own expert committees in order to produce recommendations for the Article 23 Committee itself. NGO involvement in the process is therefore virtually guaranteed. We shall do what we can to ensure that its involvement is effective. It would not however in our view be appropriate or necessary to write this in on the face of the directive.
As has been pointed out, the next stage in Brussels on this dossier will be the Council of Environment Ministers on 28th November. On that occasion my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, intends to adopt a constructive stance with a view to achieving a worthwhile measure, possibly under the subsequent Irish presidency. Where appropriate he will seek to support the French proposals, as a positive attempt to break the long-standing deadlock. If there are difficulties, for example, over the annexes, the select committee's report may well offer the Community a satisfactory way forward.
In conclusion, let me say —and I particularly have in mind the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt —that we believe in a shared European inheritance. We do not think that the fate of each nation's threatened species, and of the habitats necessary for their survival, is and should be the concern only of the nation within whose frontiers they are to be found. Through the structural funds the Community plays a vital role in the economic development of poorer member states, and this must be matched by a recognition of Community involvement in matters of environmental concern.
That applies particularly perhaps in Southern Europe where the wildlife is richest, the protection systems least advanced and the development pressures greatest.
However, we acknowledge also the right of others to know what we are doing in our own backyard. We accept that we can learn from the experience of others. We hope therefore that it will soon be possible to reach an agreement on this important directive which, as my noble friend Lord Blakenham said, could indeed raise standards of conservation throughout the Community. I should like to repeat my thanks to the committee for the valuable contribution that it has made to that end.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, there have been two threads in the debate this afternoon, one concerning nature conservation in the United Kingdom and the other appropriate action at the European Community level. I do not wish to pick up the first thread, but in thanking all those who have contributed to the debate I should like to wind up with a few remarks on the second, particularly in response to the speech by my noble friend Lord Reay from the Front Bench.
I have been strengthened by the warm words that have been spoken about our report this afternoon. It is more than reassuring—it is thoroughly heartening —to be told that the report has been widely read and is generally well received.
I note that my noble friend defined "brief", with reference to annexes, in a way that would be very

1279
much in accordance with the definition of the select committee. I suggest to him that the size of the annexes reflects the general concern that is widespread in the European Community about the threats to species and to habitats. I take note of his remarks that some of our cultural heritage, in the form of sites or habitats, is the concern of the wider Community and not merely of the member state in whose territory they may lie.
Therefore, I put it to him that at some stage in the development of the process in the European Community, looking beyond the near future and into the period when the directive is in operation, there will be and must be action at the Community level which may be against the wishes of some at least in a member state. That is an inevitable deduction and is one that we have to face up to as the debate grows.
I was somewhat disappointed by my noble friend's treatment of the important issue of financial provisions. The Government are waiting for the Commission to bring forward proposals. The select committee's proposals were very clear and I thought that he was moving towards them in his final remarks. It is important that a proportion of the vast sums that are being committed to the structural funds should be diverted to alleviate the serious threat to the European environmental heritage which is implicit in some of the proposed developments on which the money is being spent. That is a very central point in the arguments deployed by the select committee, and one that has been emphasised by noble Lords who have spoken this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wandsworth Prison
6.3 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Prison Wandsworth.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raise tonight a recently published report by her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. The report is critical of the regime at Wandsworth; in a number of respects it is highly critical. However, as Mr. Hurd said in his response to the report, it is also constructive. I am sure that all who contribute to the debate tonight will want to be equally constructive.
Before I turn to the contents of the report I should like to refer briefly to the inspectorate. The prison inspectorate was established after Sir John May's report on the prison service. In my judgment it has been a remarkable success. The first chief inspector was Mr. William Pearce, a man of high ability and integrity whose early death was a great loss to the prison service. More recently it has been led by Judge Stephen Tumim, who, by a combination of firmness and good humour, has done a great deal to enhance its reputation.
The inspectorate consists of prison service staff seconded for a period of years to assist the chief inspector. Its reports are a model of what any
1280
independent inspectorate should endeavour to achieve. They are detailed and specific, sometimes critical —as on this occasion —but also balanced. The report we are debating this evening is just such a document. It is because it is so fair that its conclusions are so disturbing.
Consider for a moment two of its central conclusions: first, that the general regime at Wandsworth did not meet basic standards of humanity and propriety; and, secondly, that life there was a deadening experience broken only by conversation about routines or a future life of crime.
Those are harsh criticisms, but I accept there are special features about Wandsworth that make the task of the managers there peculiarly difficult. Not only is the prison itself 138 years old —an ancient, decaying building like so many in the prison system —but it also fulfills the role of the prison to which inmates in the South of England are sent if their behaviour is particularly tiresome. One question which, I believe, arises from the report is whether that role of Wandsworth should be reviewed. I hope that at some stage in the future that will be done by the prisons board. In addition, it is also a Rule 43 centre for prisoners who have to be removed from association either because of their offences or because of their conduct in prison.
These are undoubtedly two of the principal reasons why over the years the regime at Wandsworth has been so rigid. Many of the inmates see themselves as tough; and so do many of the staff. Those attitudes have spilled over into relations between management and staff. The new governor, who took up his post last December, told the inspectorate that when he arrived he had a strong sense that the staff culture was happy for him to take to his office, carry out the administrative and symbollic governor tasks but leave the real running of the prison to them.
That is the first matter I want to raise. I agree with the inspectorate that Wandsworth will not be a happy establishment until authority is both exercised and accepted throughout the whole of line management. I hope very much that we have seen the last of episodes such as the one that occurred earlier this year in which, because of a walk-out by uniformed staff, the Metropolitan Police had to come in and run the prison. Fortunately, since then there appears to have been some improvement in relations between staff and management. I very much welcome that.
It cannot be said too often that management has the clear responsibility for doing its best to create good relations with staff and for consulting them when appropriate. But in the final analysis its authority has to be accepted. It is impossible for a prison to be run satisfactorily if constant attempts are made to undermine the governor and his senior colleagues. That applies to Wandsworth and to other establishments in the prison service where unfortunately we have witnessed similar conduct.
I turn now to some of the other important matters which are raised in the inspectorate's report. First, I shall deal with some of the physical problems which are associated with the prison. One of the most

1281
urgent is internal sanitation. It is extraordinary that we are still discussing that issue. Everyone accepts that the process of slopping out is a shameful affront to human decency. At Wandsworth, as in some other prisons, the cells were originally equipped with integral sanitation, but that was torn out many years ago on the instructions of someone who has never been identified.
The inspectorate says that a reasonable level of integral sanitation could be provided within the prison within seven years. Unhappily, at present the Home Office plans to provide only 300 cells out of about 1,200 at Wandsworth with lavatories and washbasins during that period. Is it impossible to accept the inspectorate's proposal? I recognise that to do so would carry with it significant implications. The number of inmates at Wandsworth would have to be reduced substantially, but given the size of the present prison building programme, which I welcome, is it out of the question?
Is it right —this is the situation disclosed in the report—that 40 inmates must still share two lavatories, two urinals and two slop sinks? I should have thought not. Is it right that they must wash their eating utensils in the same bucket or bowl as that used for personal hygiene? Is it right for the one towel in each man's possession also to be used to dry those utensils? Again, I should think that both those practices are unacceptable. Are they to be ended? We look forward to hearing from the noble Earl on that question.
There is then the question of the central bathhouse or, as the inspectorate describes it, the ghastly central bathhouse. It seems that not all inmates even receive a weekly shower, mainly due to what is described as a shortage of kit. Again, I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will assist us on this point. Can he indicate whether, as a result of the Government's review of the report, a weekly shower can now be guaranteed? I should have thought that, in the deplorably overcrowded conditions at Wandsworth, it was not a great deal to ask.
I come next to the question of catering arrangements. Here there has been, as I am sure the noble Earl will tell us, a major refurbishment of the kitchen in recent years, costing about £1 million. At the recent inspection, the staff strength in the kitchen was only a governor grade five and four officers—just half the number of staff who are employed in dealing with the question of censorship. That is a matter to which I shall return. That small group of officers must control a work party of 44 inmates.
According to the inspectorate, the effect of that situation was that the general standard of cleanliness within the kitchen complex suffered, as did the overall supervision of the inmates. The inspectorate said that that was demonstrated by,
"the deplorable state of the wash-up area".
That had become so bad that the health and safety officer had recently recommended that it be closed because it did not meet the minimum standards required under the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970. The waste food collection area
1282
was also in a poor condition and there was a problem of pest infestation. There was evidence of the presence of both mice and cockroaches.
This issue goes well beyond Wandsworth. We have had a stream of complaints on the issue from the prisons inspectorate. They have covered many prisons including Maidstone, Pucklechurch, Hollesley Bay, Dartmoor and Blundeston. It is now essential that just as Crown immunity was removed from hospitals after the food poisoning outbreak at Stanley Royd Hospital in Wakefield it should also be removed from prisons. The practice whereby prisons cannot be prosecuted, however verminous their kitchens may be, is in my judgment no longer tolerable.
I now turn to two other issues before coming to the final matter that I want to raise. First, on the question of censorship, when there are so many references in the report to staff shortages at Wandsworth I find it bizarre that 10 uniformed staff are employed full time in censoring correspondence. As I have said, that is twice as many as work in the grossly understaffed kitchens in the prison. The inspectorate says, with remarkable restraint, that it is questionable whether full censorship is required of all outgoing mail. The full cost of that practice at Wandsworth is no less than £150,000 a year. We must ask ourselves —it is a term which trips off the lips of Ministers —whether we are getting value for money with regard to that extraordinary level of expenditure.
I am well aware that in the past prison management has sometimes been hesitant about cutting back on entirely unnecessary censorship practice because of staff attitudes. I well remember an occasion at the Home Office when was present at a meeting with the then Home Secretary in which it was made clear to us that, if we extended the number of establishments where censorship was to be abandoned, immediate industrial action would be taken against us. I hope that, despite those problems, the Minister will be able to indicate whether there can be a sharp cut-back in the resources made available for censorship at the prison.
Secondly, there is the question of the library for inmates, who are, as we all know, sometimes locked up for very long periods of the day. One of the few ways of making their life more tolerable is to be able to obtain a library book. It is alarming —that is the term used by the inspectorate —that inmates have sometimes not been able to change their books for several weeks. The inspectorate's modest proposal is that that should be possible at least once a week. I ask the noble Earl: can that now be guaranteed?
I now come to the final issue that I want to raise. In some respects it is one of the most fundamental. It is the question of race relations. About a third of the inmates of Wandsworth are black. Yet, according to the inspectorate's report, of the 30 orderly jobs in the main prison —jobs which are some of the most popular with inmates —not one is held by a man with a black face, despite the fact that about 33 per cent. of the inmates of that prison are black. We must ask why that should be so. It is also clear from the report that people of ethnic minority background

1283
are overrepresented among the unemployed in the prison.
There is little doubt that one of the reasons for this is racial prejudice among a minority —I believe that it is a minority —of prison officers. Just as it was an initial assessment report at Wandsworth Prison some years ago that led ultimately to a judicial finding that an inmate at Parkhurst, Mr. John Alexander, had been unlawfully discriminated against, I believe that, despite all the efforts which have been made to eliminate those practices, some of them linger on.
Perhaps I may make quite clear what I am saying. I do not believe that the record of the prison service is worse than that of the probation service, the private sector, social work agencies, journalism or the profession of politics; indeed, in some respects it is a great deal better. But why is there still not one black orderly at Wandsworth? Why —I now refer specifically to paragraph 3.59 of the inspectorate's report —has management in the past allowed,
"many staff [to wear] unofficial insignia"?
The inspectorate makes clear that those insignia have clear racial connotations. The inspectorate adds that slashed peaks to uniform hats are no less intimidating.
I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Earl will take the same view of such practices as do the rest of us. They are unacceptable. If a policeman or a soldier wore a similar badge or defaced his cap, he would soon find himself on a disciplinary charge. Precisely the same principle should now be extended to the prison service and it should be done at once. I hope that it will be done not only at Wandsworth but at any other prison department establishment where similar practices exist.
In conclusion, I believe that there are many men and women in the prison service at Wandsworth and elsewhere who work with devotion to make tolerable the conditions for inmates. Some significant improvements have been made despite the huge number that this country holds in custody. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to reassure the House that prompt action is now being taken to rectify the serious shortcomings that have been disclosed in this report.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I shall pursue the argument of my noble friend in general but hope to offer some details other than those that he has so far given to the House. This report should be compulsory reading for every magistrate and judge in the country. Those who have the power and the duty to send people to prison should be aware of what they are doing. This objective and courageous report should act as an extra argument in addition to the many others for not sending anyone to prison if it can possibly be avoided.
I do not want to make attacks on the Minister or the Home Office but it is impossible not to lay some blame on the Government for the deplorable conditions revealed in this report. The Government have had 10 years of an alleged economic miracle in which to put things right. Deplorable building
1284
conditions can be put right only by money, so one would have thought that an economic miracle would have been just the job.
Not all prisons are as terrible as this report depicts Wandsworth to be. However quite a few of them are as bad. Several local prisons are far more overcrowded than Wandsworth, which has 25 per cent. overcrowding. Bascially overcrowding is the root of all evil in the prison system. In Wandsworth the crude building conditions are intolerable but even that could be lived with if the 25 per cent. excess over the CNA (certified normal accommodation) were removed and the shortage of staff, which is referred to all through this report, were made good. There would then be some chance of easing the bad conditions which, we are told, will not be put right until the next century and then only up to 87 per cent.
I am fully aware that Wandsworth takes largely men who have been difficult to handle, as my noble friend pointed out. Both officers and men seem to take a pride in being in a "tough nick", as they call it, and to some extent they play up to it. Overcrowding and staff shortages in such conditions cannot fail to lead to bad staff relations and trouble.
When this House discussed the prison department's on the whole excellent Fresh Start scheme for reorganising staff duties, almost every speaker said that it would succeed only if the recommended staff were in fact made available. It is now one and a half years since the change; yet in a prison which has the most unsatisfactory conditions and which holds particularly difficult inmates the recommended staff are still not available.
We were told in paragraph 2.28 that both management and staff were feeling badly let down by the department's failure to produce the 10 officers owing to the prison in April under Fresh Start; nor has the flexible working envisaged in the Fresh Start scheme been applied. Paragraph 2.31 speaks of a shortfall of 17 staff at officer level. Paragraph 2.33 refers to staff vacancies running at around 20 per cent. If there is a 20 per cent. staff shortage and 25 per cent. overcrowding, what can be expected? It seems to me that management and staff must be congratulated on keeping the lid on at all in such circumstances.
Let me turn briefly to the building side of the problem. The Government seem content to neglect current repairs to prison buildings as readily as they have neglected current repairs to museums and galleries, which have been a great deal in the news lately. Keeping up with current repairs is simply a question of men and money, not of prison psychology or anything else. Clearly both are inadequate.
Paragraph 2.08 of the report states that neither the current levels of work-staff nor the resources allocated are enough to maintain the prison in its present state, let alone deal with a heavy backlog of repairs. As my noble friend mentioned, the prison department has installed integral sanitation in eight cells as a pilot scheme. I gave notice to the noble Earl of my intention to ask the following questions, but an answer by letter will do as well as an immediate reply this evening. I want to know how

1285
much it cost, how many workmen were involved and how long it took. I want to know whether any prison labour was used, whether any work was contracted out, whether extra staff were taken on or whether the backlog of repairs was simply allowed to increase while this pilot job was done.
I understand that the Government have rejected the chief inspector's clear recommendation to make that 150-year overdue improvement within seven years. If that is not true I shall be very glad to hear it. This recommendation must be adopted, cost what it may. I hope that the noble Earl will explain why it cannot be done in three or four years rather than in seven. The building trade is slackening at the moment and the Government can exercise their favourite discipline imposed on local authorities to contract out for the whole job. I believe that it is simply a question of money and that the highest priority should be given to putting right what is so inhumanly wrong.
So much for the longer-term problems. A number of shorter-term problems have been referred to by my noble friend, and some of them can be put right very quickly. I shall not go through the list which I sent to the noble Earl but feel that I must refer to the question of two towels. That was a recommendation that was sent to the Director General. I hope to make it quite clear in this House that I believe that the Director General ought to agree to that recommendation, and jolly quickly. Secondly, there is the question of the two bowls to which my noble friend referred. That is elementary and obviously right. Thirdly, I shall speak about only one further matter which again was referred to by my noble friend; namely the question of baths, showers and lavatories. Slopping out is a great horror. We all hate it. But after a prisoner has slopped out, if he is then stuck with overcrowded baths and ill kept lavatories, the position becomes almost shameful.
I want to say a few words about the palliatives for strict confinement, the most important of which in my view are work, books and visits. Wandsworth seems to me to get no more than one or two marks out of 10 for any of them. With regard to work, we are told that the workshops in operation can cope with 400 or so persons, but once again owing to shortage of staff the average attendance over the past six months has been 215. That is out of a population of 1,500. At best two-thirds of the inmates are left with nothing to do. In particular, those in the G, H and K cells are on Rule 43; they are kept in the cell most of the time.
On the subject of books, why should access to the library be, in the words of the report, "only patchy"? Why should some men be unable to change their books for several weeks? In many prisons libraries give a very good service but not, it seems, at Wandsworth Prison.
Most important of all is the subject of visits. The recommendations to the governor, numbers 77 to 84, are all about visits and are a serious attempt to remedy the very unsatisfactory arrangements described in paragraphs 3.66 to 3.70 in the report.
Last week we had a most interesting talk at the NACRO AGM from Mr. Brendan Reynolds, who is
1286
number two in the Canadian prison service. I asked him about their visiting arrangements and told him that ours depended to a high degree on private charity. He replied that in Canada they regarded money spent on improving visiting conditions as a wise investment, as visits above all other factors tend to reduce tension, and tension is the most dangerous and ultimately expensive condition possible in prisons. I hope that the noble Earl will consider that point. It seems to me that throughout the prison service although some visiting conditions are good, many are very bad. To improve the visiting conditions is a very constructive way of making the situation better.
I wish to described what at the worst may happen to any man who finds himself incarcerated in Wandsworth Prison. He will be locked up for 23 hours a day in a cell designed 150 years ago for one person, sharing it with two others and their chamber pots. He may receive a change of clothing and have a bath sometimes as seldom as once in three weeks. Books are changeable sometimes as seldom as every three weeks. He has nothing to do. I do not pretend that this account describes every prisoner's lot all the time but it may apply to anyone for long periods and it applies to many quite frequently. If it were me, I should hate everyone concerned in any way with my imprisonment: the Home Office, the governor, the prison officers, the probation officers and the police. If I did not go mad I should commit murder or suicide.
All of us who have spoken today, and those who will speak, know very well that the problems confronting the noble Earl and his colleagues are real, formidable and not able to be solved without difficulty and expense. We know also that the noble Earl and his colleagues are just as distressed as we are at the seriousness of the problems, especially that of sanitation. My difficulty is that I have been speaking on this issue for 30 years and nothing has happened. Matters have become observably worse. As a so-called civilised nation, we cannot go on like this any more.
I do not expect the noble Earl to tell me that plans exist to put everything right in no time. However I beg him to persuade his colleagues in the Government to give real priority, with not inconsiderable sums of money, to the righting of this wholly unacceptable state of affairs. We must have a major effort to deal with the minor problems, and a major switch of resources to deal with the large problems of sanitation, building repairs and shortage of staff. Not many problems respond to money being thrown at them, but building problems will respond to nothing else. If tonight we can between us say anything that will hurry up such a priority, the time of the House will not have been wasted.
6.35 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, a number of debates have been held in your Lordships' House in recent years about the prison service and custodial sentencing. Each time we are faced with fundamental questions as to what prisons are for, how we value people who are imprisoned and what our grossly overcrowded prisons say about the state of British society and its legal system. This debate

1287
is about a particular prison. I therefore wish to observe, only very briefly, that Christian principles require us to hold together a belief in justice and values with a belief in mercy, because God is merciful and we all need his mercy. Morever, Christans, along with many others, believe in the funadmental value of each human being, in the possibility of change and reform and in the need to create conditions which make reformation possible.
The prison service of England and Wales has an aim in line with such principles. It issued a new statement of purpose at the beginning of this year which includes these words:
"Her Majesty's Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the Courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and to help them to lead useful lives in custody and after release".
It is against that background that I wish to speak very briefly about the report.
I am deeply sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark is unwell and is prevented from being here today. Wandsworth Prison is in his diocese. He has been there a number of times and he maintains regular contact with the prison chaplains to whom the report refers. However, in much that I say I shall echo his reactions to the report and his concern.
Appendix 1 of the report reproduces an "Agreed Action Document" for Wandsworth Prison 1988–89. It gives content to the statement of purpose to which I have referred. However, it is instructive to compare the two columns, which show where the specific aims contained in CI 55/1984 have been modified to suit the conditions obtaining at Wandsworth Prison. I note that under Function No. 17 the phrase,
"individual and collective leisure activities"
has disappeared, unless there is some reference to it in the unpublished annexes. Under Function No. 18, the phrase,
"to enable prisoners to spend the maximum possible time out of their cells",
has been considerably weakened to read,
"to provide, where possible, opportunities for prisoners to spend time out of their cells".
Reading the report it is quite clear that a great many prisoners spend almost the whole time banged up, as it is called, deprived of even the minimum fortnightly visits to a library and with little prospect of useful work or activity of any kind. There is a continuing failure to provide a regime at Wandsworth Prison which can be described as humane or reformatory in any meaningful way. Thus the report expresses the conclusion that for prisoners, life at Wandsworth was a deadening experience broken only by conversation about routines or about a future life of crime.
Paragraph 3.39 of the report is headed "Inmates' Perceptions". It is a list of those things which are experienced as being most difficult to bear and so induce the most negative feelings about the whole regime. Outsiders, including the press, tend to fasten more readily on the lack of adequate sanitation and hygiene and on the resulting need for slopping out —in the case of some inmates less frequently
1288
than need be. Noble Lords have already spoken at some length about this very distressing and dehumanising necessity —if it is a necessity —in the life of our prisons today and I share their distaste.
But it is the perception of many who work in the prison that what is most difficult to bear is the isolation, not only the physical isolation from other people inside the prison which results from the lack of work and leisure activity but isolation from family and friends because of the extraordinarily strict limitations on visiting and on mail. Chaplains spend hours and hours dealing with written applications for news of family or special visits, and these are almost always generated by anxiety and too much time to brood in loneliness.
Paragraphs 3.66 to 3.70 give a dismal picture of the inadequacies to be found in this area of prison life, inadequacies of which most people are quite unaware. Is there no way in which adequate levels of staffing can be obtained in order to break down some of this unnecessary isolation? Is there no way in which the prison authorities can be encouraged to approach local voluntary bodies, churches and so on to try to provide better facilities for visitors? And why on earth should new prisoners be deprived of visits for so long?
Whenever criticism is made of prison life there are always two immediate explanations—overcrowding and staff shortages. The report makes clear that Wandsworth already works under such dreadful constraints, and I doubt whether any of your Lordships would find it easy to work in such an institution; I know I would not. But the conclusions in Chapter Four spell out some things which can begin to change now and paragraph 4.08 states this unequivocally.
We must all be grateful to the judge and his staff for this honest report, to the Home Office for publishing it and to the many people inside Wandsworth Prison itself who gave frank replies to searching questions and who clearly want to see matters improve. It is a matter of great urgency. I believe that it is a matter which should concern us all, and we very much look forward to hearing the noble Earl as he speaks on these serious matters.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, reading the report on Wandsworth is rather sobering. Wandsworth is, of course, the peak of the pyramid of prisons, most of which are overcrowded. I believe that the Government are building a lot of prisons at the moment, and I have no doubt that we shall hear about that from the Minister.
It is often said that there are too many people sent to gaol by magistrates. I sit as a magistrate, like many other noble Lords, and certainly I can say that there is enormous effort made at all times not to send people to gaol. However, the fact is that, inevitably, it is necessary from time to time. But what one discovers is that there is a never-ending variety of crime, a never-ending variety of criminals and their backgrounds and only a very limited means of disposal.
Some people obviously have to go to prison because they are a positive danger to the public or

1289
their crimes are on such a scale that there is no alternative. But there are many other people who are eventually sent to prison, such as, for example, the persistent petty offender who repeatedly drives without insurance, who is continually fined, who then refuses to pay his fine, gets community service and in the end, because there is no alternative has to go to gaol. But such a person is not dangerous and gaol is not the right place to send him. He is often 21 years old, is unemployed, has a girl friend and two children and has no money with which to pay any fine.
We see people of this sort over and over again. Every magistrate must know them. Such people go to prison, they do little, they learn little, they learn to be even more idle than they were before, they learn expertise in crime and they learn degradation. We have heard all about this at Wandsworth. It does not do them any good, but what else can one do?
I believe that there should be more alternatives to sending people to prison. We already have community service, probation and so on. These can be used to a great extent and they are very good, but the more alternatives we can find the better. There should be more options than the extremes of fines and imprisonment. What is needed are methods of punishing people so that not only do they get punishment, but, if possible, they learn how to work, to get up in the morning and to get going, so that when they finish their time they are of some use to themselves and have the motivation to get a job and to get going in life.
What is needed are simple jobs which offenders have to do as a punishment. I am talking about repetitive stuff which can get them going. It is very difficult to find jobs of this sort, though community service goes some way towards it. But the point of my speech is to suggest just one such job. It relates to forestry. I want to talk about forestry for a moment. The Forestry Commission have cast acreages of forest throughout the country, most of which is unbrashed. It is like a jungle and there are branches not cut off. Because of that, the forest will remain a jungle and be of low value for the country in the future.
I believe that this could provide work as a substitute for prison. Certain unmotivated youngsters could be sent out to brash specific areas, which they would have to finish before they were allowed out into the community again. They would need little supervision and they would learn how to get up in the morning, because as soon as they had done their stint they could leave. There would be competition to get on and get the job done quickly. Having worked hard for so many acres, which might take weeks or months, they could then go, so they would learn to work quickly and to get on with the job.
There would obviously be a problem with unions, but this work, if it is not done by the equivalent of community service labour, will not be done at all. Having been done, however, the woods would then be available for thinning, which would employ more
1290
labour. So it would increase the paid labour needed by the Forestry Commission in the future.
I hope that the Home Office will give serious study to this scheme. I believe that it could be worked out and, if it would enable some people to be kept out of prison, that would leave more room for those who have to go to prison, and it would make a contribution towards solving the overcrowding in the prisons of this country.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, from everything that has been said so far, there is really no doubt at all that all of us who are concerned and involved with standards within our prisons are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris., for bringing this report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons to our notice. I should like to add my words of tribute to Judge Stephen Tumim for producing such a very excellent, frank report.
It is clear from what all speakers have said that it is a particularly damning report. Speaking for myself, I must confess that when reading parts of it, particularly its conclusions, I could hardly believe that it was a British institution which was being described. I could not believe that it was a British prison being described when the report stated —and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has already referred to this —in the first lines of the recommendations that,
"The regime for inmates does not meet basic standards of humanity and propriety".
To read such a description of a prison in this country has a very profound effect on all those of us who are very concerned about the standard of our prisons.
As the right reverend Prelate said, there is a cruel paradox between those words and the inscription on all our prison walls which described the aims of our prison service and which conflicts so very harshly with the words of the Chief Inspector.
I should like to speak as the chairman of the New Bridge. I should like to add that this critical report confirms many of the comments which I have heard from the New Bridge volunteers who visit those who they befriend in Wandsworth Prison. Indeed, some would maintain that however bad this report may be, much of it is not saying anything new. They would say that it effectively repeats complaints raised on countless occasions. Those volunteers —and I stress that they are very experienced in this field —describe the prison as a place apart with a regime, system and atmosphere of its own. They find it a very much harder place in which to carry out their befriending role.
Perhaps I may give an example. During the postal strike one of our volunteers who lived close to Wandsworth wished to deliver a letter by hand in order that his client should receive it. He took it to the gates of the gaol and was turned away with the words, "We only accept letters from the Royal Mail". That would seem to substantiate the report's description when it refers to adopting an attitude of giving nothing to prisoners.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and other speakers have made some very important points. I do not wish to repeat them all but I should like to stress

1291
some issues which have been raised and to give my support to many of the points mentioned.
First —and I think it is impossible to refer to this report without referring to the part on sanitation —I cannot understand why the prison department proposes to install integral sanitation in only 408 cells. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked: how on earth could it possibly take seven years? Indeed, I understand that it may take even longer. At that rate, it will be a photo finish between the building of the Channel Tunnel and the integral sanitation at Wandsworth Prison. It is inconceivable to think of anything which is so deeply needed taking such a very long time.
Again, how can it possibly be that the inmates, who already have so few showers, can only have clean clothes when they have had those very spasmodic showers so that they neither have showers nor clean clothes? As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the health risks brought on by the extraordinary practice described in the report of prisoners washing up their eating utensils in containers used for personal hygiene is quite appalling.
Perhaps I could just say a few words about visits. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, quote the example from Canada. I believe it is important that a lot of attention is given to visits as that is a very important part of the rehabilitation of the prisoner. From the point of view of the prisoner, I should also like to know how the practice arises whereby sometimes prisoners are denied visits twice per month until they have been there for three and a half months. That seems a particularly harsh practice and I wonder how that arose in Wandsworth Prison.
From the viewpoint of the visitors, what strikes me in the report is the lack of a visitors' centre. I have always wondered why it is the wives and children of our prisoners who are punished. Why do we make them wait such long periods in such terribly bad conditions to see their husbands, fathers or sons? That point is borne out by a letter to The Times from the director of the New Bridge in which he described his own visit to Wandsworth. He talked about the degrading conditions experienced by visitors to HM Prison Wandsworth. He wrote:
"Hardly a week goes by without a complaint from a New Bridge voluntary associate…about the circumstances to which all visitors are subjected. It seems incredible that for a 30-minute visit you have to spend up to two hours trying to get in and out of the place".
He then described the very successful plans being made in other London prisons for visitor centres which are being started up by volunteers. I believe that a visitor centre at Wandsworth seems absolutely imperative.
I should like to say a few words about staff training. There seems to be a rather strange feature that Wandsworth of all places should fill the national role for fielding inquiries about careers in the prison service. It runs initial assessment tests for applicants and also provides a 10-day orientation course before the start of training. Perhaps the Minister could explain why that very unrepresentative prison should have been chosen to fill that all-important function of providing an example to new entrants.
1292
That cannot be the right introduction for people entering into the prison service.
The section dealing with the medical staff says that of the 32 hospital officers, at least five are working exclusively on administration and do not deal with patients. That seems a terrible way of using medical expertise, if there are as many as five people working exclusively on administration.
The section which describes suicide prevention says that there is a serious defect in reporting self-injury on the Form 220. It says that the statistics were graded in five degrees of seriousness ranging from gesture to serious attempt. There was no record of what was actually done; for example, wrists slashed or attempted hanging. It says that those shortcomings should be rectified at once. I very much hope that the Minister will tell us that there is an intention to do that.
I was also surprised to see in the report that there was a 37-bed ward facility standing empty and yet the report talked about the presence of many inmates with psychiatric problems who were not receiving treatement.
Of course, there are many other important questions in this report and many have been covered today. I shall not cover any more specific points except I should like to give my very strong support to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about alleged racism among the staff.
I should also be very grateful to hear from the Minister what action has been taken on those members who, it is said, slashed the peaks of their caps and whether or not it is true that insignias have been worn on uniforms. I should have thought that it went right against the prison rules for members of the staff so to change their uniforms.
Will the Minister also comment on the very worrying point in the report which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has brought up, that black inmates, who total nearly one-third of the population, appear to be discriminated against and are treated worse than the white prisoners? This is a very serious question to which I feel we need an answer.
I conclude by saying a word about the staff of Wandsworth Prison. It is quite clear from the report that they operate a hard regime; but when one considers the ingredients, so to speak, making up this prison, it seems very much less surprising that they are constricted to such a hard regime. First, there is the building itself which was built in the 1850s and is of a "tired nature", as it is described. Secondly, Wandsworth was never intended to hold such a huge number of prisoners —450 Rule 3 inmates who are locked up 22 or 23 hours a day without treatment therapy, a structural programme of training or anything.
Thirdly, Wandsworth is a receiving establishment for difficult prisoners from other prisons. This brings to the staff all the problems which go with that. The chief inspector's report stated that two-thirds of the inmates were unemployed. The truth is that out of those 1,500 there are rarely more than 250 prisoners on a daily basis able to work. The report says:
"Both management and Staff Association felt badly let down by the Department's failure to produce the ten officers owing to the prison on 1 April under the Framework Agreement".

1293
I too believe, as previous speakers have said, that such a shortfall must be very difficult for the prison to carry. Those points have been brought out many times by the staff at Wandsworth.
All in all, when Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons described the impoverished regime, how nothing is given, the prisoners' attitude and how staff operated a thoroughly institutionalised routine by imposing many simple basic rules, he was quite right to add that by the same token the operation of such an inadequate regime blunts staff development and gives only limited job satisfaction.
As the right reverend Prelate said, this report underlines the lack of any kind of therapy, remedial or rehabilitation treatment. It strongly stresses the need for the public to take more interest in what happens in their prisons. The public take a great interest in what happens in schools and hospitals; if they focused their interest on what was happening inside their own prisons I cannot help but believe that the conditions which have come about in Wandsworth Prison would not be allowed.
I shall be very grateful for some answers from the Minister to my specific questions and I share a hope with all those who have spoken that Judge Tumim's very frank report, its recommendations and this debate will result in vast improvements to this prison and will remove what I can only see as a very grave blot on this country's reputation as a humane society.
7.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this subject today because it is one which exercises your Lordships and your Lordships have been traditionally concerned with prisons —what they are like inside and what happens to those who reside in them. That concern has been expressed again today. It is always difficult to get the balance right between removing people from society as a punishment or to protect society and then ensuring that they are not subjected to a waste of life when they are in prison. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made quite clear his concern about that. He gave us the benefit of the difficulties to which prisoners are subjected and to which his own pastors are subjected when they try to help the prisoners.
I was also interested by the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Gisborough of using prisoners for work in forestry. It is an interesting suggestion. There are nowadays fewer prisoners who are suitable to work outside the establishment without supervision. This has come about mainly because of the increased use in recent years of non-custodial sentences. In areas where there are open prisons agricultural work and contributions to local community work are carrried out by inmates and these arrangements are operating very satisfactorily. My noble friend is quite right, however, that it gives people an opportunity to do something constructive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that she wished more people would take greater notice of what happens inside prisons. One of the advantages of the publication of the inspector's report is precisely that; these reports are now published and
1294
are public knowledge. As has been quite evident today, those of your Lordships who have read the report are interested by what they have discovered.
The report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, his honour Judge Tumim, on his inspection of Wandsworth Prison in April 1989 was published on 20th October with a statement setting out the action which was being taken in response. Copies were placed in the Library. The chief inspector provided in the report a constructive —in some places critical —assessment, pointing to serious shortcomings in the regime and in the ethos at Wandsworth. He identified several areas where he considered that improvement was necessary. These included the overall management of the establishment, some aspects of the buildings, the regime for inmates and the facilities for visitors and staff.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his observation regarding the governor and his staff. He said that the governor must do all that he can to create good relations between himself and his staff but in the end the governor had to govern. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was quite right in that, if I may say so. He was right also to underline that very simple but very important point.
The chief inspector recommended that Wandsworth's functions should be more clearly defined and that priorities for management action should be set. As all noble Lords will agree, Wandsworth has always been somewhere which has housed what one might call the heaviest of criminals: those who have raped and mugged, Rule 43 prisoners and those who have been sent there from other prisons because they were not suited to their easier regime.
In that respect Wandsworth has always been a tough place. But its virtue is that its very toughness has enabled other prisons to house less hardened people and therefore to be able to have more enlightened regimes. One should not lose sight of that fact. In other words, it has enabled the rest of the prison system to function better.
Wandsworth is the main prison in London for long sentence prisoners, a function which it carries out very well. Long-term prisoners start their sentences at Wandworth and are allocated from there to other prisons. If a prisoner fails to respond at the prison to which he is allocated, it is clearly best for him to be returned to Wandsworth where he was originally assessed. He can then start again. This inevitably means that Wandsworth has more than its share of difficult prisoners.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford was worried about a prison's ability to reform and to understand its prisoners. I believe he said that prisoners were banged up with nothing to do. He rightly reminded us of the chaplain's difficulties in trying to help prisoners. Nobody denies that it is a difficult position. Governors can and should incorporate the help of voluntary services. I believe that this is a matter about which the right reverend Prelate was concerned. With the best will in the world there are roles which voluntary and Christian agencies can undertake better, more

1295
sensitively and more personally than even the best of the prison regimes. The governor of Wandswroth is making as much use of voluntary agencies as he can. These kinds of agencies are being involved in setting up arrangements for improved visitors' facilities. The New Bridge organisation, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, is the chairman, is also involved in that work.
The inspectors were not impressed with Wandsworth's agreed functions document. They considered that a vital early task should be to review the existing statement of functions, and in particular they considered that the function of the Rule 43 wings should be reviewed and the prison's role in coping with difficult prisoners who had failed in other prisons in the South-East region should be examined. This criticism was accepted.
The governor and his senior staff are completely revising the establishment's functions document and its priorities, with the assistance of headquarters specialists. They are drawing up what they call corporate objectives for all groups of staff. That is what one might call prisonspeak for the functions document. There are no plans in the near future to change the basic role of Wandsworth, which will continue to house Rule 43 prisoners in G, H and K wings and which will receive from other prisons in the region inmates who do not find it easy to accept the more open regimes which other prisons offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said that it is only money that will put the prison business right. He has frequently said that, and I understand his concern to improve the prisons and his view that a great deal of money has to be spent. During the present year, 1989–90, £123 million is being spent on work in existing prisons. In addition, £200 million is being spent on building new prisons. At Wandsworth £5 million of building work is in hand and over £500,000 is for work due to start early next year. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, may well say that that is not enough, but in his customary generosity he will accept that it is quite a lot of money and that a good deal is being done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the visits of relatives and said how important they were. They are important because they enable a prisoner to keep in touch with his family. I do not know how it came about that prisoners were being denied visits twice a month until they had been at Wandsworth for three-and-a-half months. The present governor found that this was the practice when he was appointed and it was then stopped.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked about the condition of the buildings. A major survey carried out at the end of 1984 showed that most of the buildings needed to be repaired and to be upgraded. A 10-year programme of work was prepared and that has started. The inspectors recommended that integral sanitation should be installed in all cells at Wandsworth within seven years, and that showers should then be installed in the recesses which have been previously used to
1296
house toilets. There is a programme to install integral sanitation in 300 cells at Wandsworth as part of the initiative which was announced by my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary in February this year.
We have considered whether the programme could be speeded up and expanded, but the overall building programme at Wandsworth in the next few years is very extensive, as the report points out. This work is essential if we are to maintain and improve the fabric and the services; if we are to upgrade security and if we are to provide new facilities, including a new reception facility which the chief inspector's report identified as being urgently required. Work is also in hand on the upgrading of the drainage system and is shortly to start on reroofing the wings.
This overall programme of work will extend the works department at Wandsworth to the full, and any additional work at this stage would jeopardise this vital programme. We have accepted the inspectors' recommendation that the works department should be provided with additional resources, and its complement has been increased by six. It is against this background that it would simply not be practicable to speed up the provision of integral sanitation at this time, notwithstanding the fact that it is desirable. I shall give way in a moment to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, but this point is important. We have first to get the main drainage system and the water supply system upgraded before we can implement the new integral sanitation. It simply will not function until the other work has been done.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Earl has given me half the answer; namely, that certain things have to be done first. I hope that when they are done the noble Earl will try to get assurance that the work will not depend only on the existing staff but will be contracted out in order that the project may be completed much more quickly. Obviously, this work cannot be done before the more urgent work but it should be done immediately afterwards.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can quite understand the noble Lord's concern. He will realise that these undertakings have to move in progression. What we wish to achieve is to get the drainage work done first. Then it is our intention to have the sanitation work completed as soon as possible. I cannot give a guarantee to the noble Lord as to the method by which this will be done. It is planned to start the integral sanitation once the drainage system at Wandsworth —which at present is being totally disruptive —has been completed. One of the problems is the necessity to decamp prisoners into alternative accommodation while the integral sanitation is being installed. It is preferable that this should be done by closing a whole wing, but that merely compounds the difficulty of prisoner accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked about the pilot integral sanitation scheme which has already been installed at Wandsworth. He was kind enough to say that I could answer by letter, but I shall be

1297
quite happy now to give the noble Lord the answer which he requires. I am sure he will then be generous enough to say that I have given him the full answer and not only half of it.
Eight cells have had lavatories and washbasins with cold running water installed. The work took six weeks to complete and cost £925 per cell, £475 of which was accounted for by materials. It was undertaken by three prison work staff and six inmates. No contractors were involved in the work. In addition, the opportunity is now being taken, while refurbishing is being done in K wing, to install integral sanitation into 10 cells in K wing.
It is only right to point out that the prototype was installed into cells which are close to existing sanitary recesses where all the services are provided and which therefore makes for relatively simple and easy installation. Installation of integral sanitation throughout all the wings will involve more drainage, cold water tanks, boilers and pipes, and will be a much more complicated task.
We recognise that much needs to be done in order to improve the poor visiting facilities which exist at Wandsworth. The recommendations which were made by the chief inspector to the governor of Wandsworth have been accepted in full. The need for a visitors' centre and for facilities for nursing mothers was identified before the inspection report, and a committee was set up at Wandsworth in order to look at proposals for a visitors' centre.
The Butler Trust and the prisoners' wives representatives at Brixton Prison have been approached for suggestions as to how the facilities can be improved. It is hoped that a building close to the prison will be converted. This new visitors' centre will include a play area and an area for nursing mothers. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked when the visitors' centre will be open. I cannot give a date for that at present. The proposals are still at an early stage but they will be implemented as soon as it is possible to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to catering. The chief inspector made five recommendations. Catering staff at Wandsworth have increased by six in recent months. The staff now consists of one principal officer, two senior officers and seven officers. A board has recently been held to fill the vacant governor 5 catering post, and the one officer vacancy in the kitchen will also be filled soon.
Work on the major refurbishment of the kitchen wash-up area is due for completion at the end of this month and a full range of food samples is now being retained in case it may be necessary to subject the food to testing at a later date. Funds have been made available for the provision of sterilising sinks in the wings for the washing of trays and arrangements will be put in hand shortly for the installation of these. The relocation of the places from which food is served away from recesses which contain the toilets is a major works programme. This is still being considered. As an interim measure, toilet recesses are not used at times when meals are being served.
The issue of Crown immunity is frequently referred to. At present, the catering facilities of
1298
prison service establishments are exempt from the requirements of the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970. These include the requirement which allows environmental health officers of the local authority the right of access to premises to carry out inspections. We are, though, acutely conscious of the need for food hygiene practice in prison establishments to be of a high standard. Despite the fact that prisons have, by tradition, received Crown immunity, it is the Government's policy that prisons should meet the same standards of hygiene as if they did not have that immunity.
To assist in this, a programme of inspections is undertaken by professionally qualified officers in the Home Office, all of whom hold the Diploma in Food Hygiene from the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene. Under this programme, the catering facilities of each establishment are the subject of a formal inspection at least once a year. This programme is supplemented by a series of 12 independent validation inspections each year by an environmental health officer from the Department of Health. Establishments receive no prior warning of either the internal or the validation inspections.
Governors and medical officers have a crucial role to play in the day-to-day monitoring of standards and in identifying shortcomings. Medical officers in particular have a specific responsibility for supervising hygiene standards in their establishments, and they are required to carry out full inspections twice a year. In order to help medical officers and line managers, comprehensive guidance on hygiene was issued in July of this year. Health and safety policy statements were also circulated to the service in August. These set out improved arrangements for monitoring standards and they impose a requirement that governors should include a section on hygiene standards in their annual reports on their establishments. I hope that this will help to improve the standards of hygiene.
There are no plans at present to consider the removal of Crown immunity from the kitchens of prison establishments, as we think that the present arrangements serve to set and to maintain the standards which are required by the regulations. We shall continue to seek ways of making improvements, and we will keep under review the whole question of Crown immunity.
I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the intrusiveness of censoring of inmates' correspondence and the effect which this has on relationships between inmates and staff. It is also, as he pointed out, a time-consuming and costly procedure. We recognise that there would be advantages in reducing censorship, not only at Wandsworth but also at all Category B establishments. Noble Lords may know that, in recent years, we have substantially reduced censorship at lower security establishments. There is now no censorship at open prisons, which are Category D prisons, and merely random monitoring of some 5 per cent. of the mail at Category C establishments. Where remand and other Category B prisoners are concerned, the implications for security and control are clearly more serious and will need to be examined in some detail before a decision

1299
on a possible reduction of censorship is taken. I can assure the House that this is now being closely considered.
The noble Lord drew attention to the chief inspector's recommendation concerning race relations at Wandsworth prison. The governors have accepted and have acted on all these recommendations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked whether disciplinary action had been taken against staff at Wandsworth who were wearing unofficial insignia or who had slashed the peaks of their caps. I understand that no disciplinary action has been taken. The instructions which the governor issued on the matter were complied with, and there was no need to consider any further action. Disciplinary action is probably not the best way of dealing with this kind of problem, which is more a matter of staff attitudes. We should try to seek changes in other ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and other noble Lords referred to the position of black people in Wandsworth. The noble Lord said that there were no black prison officers. There are at least two black orderlies—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I was asking why no black prisoners were used as orderlies. The inspector pointed out that there were 30 such jobs. In a prison where 33 per cent. of the inmates are black, there was not one black face in that group of orderlies. Is that question also being addressed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that there are at least two black orderlies, including the governor's orderly. The governor is now monitoring the employment of inmates and other activities in order to ensure that there is no discrimination. Allocation of work is now in the hands of a governor grade officer.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford referred to the difficulty of changing library books and asked why this could not be done at least once a week. That is the aim but there are certain logistical problems. Arranging for some 1,500 inmates to visit the library, escorting them there and taking them back presents severe logistical problems. The library can hold only 20 or 30 inmates at a time. It is sometimes necessary to cancel a library visit in favour of other activities such as taking prisoners to court. I can assure the House that it is the governor's aim that visits to the library should take place once a week.
The inspectors acknowledged that Wandsworth had carried out a difficult range of functions for more than 20 years without an escape or a major disturbance. But they stated that this had been achieved by imposing a most basic and restrictive regime which gave inmates a low quality of life and which blunted staff development. The right reverend Prelate, among others, referred to this matter. The chief inspector recommended that urgent steps should be taken to improve the regime for inmates. We agree. But progress on the regime will need to be made in stages, and by looking at each group of prisoners separately. This process has begun.
1300
The first groups to receive attention were the vulnerable prisoners in G, H and K wings and the long-term population. Prison officers now lead courses in G, H and K wings in order to help prisoners cope with living in prison and to prepare them for their release. There are also plans for further courses for prisoners in mid-sentence. Cell hobbies, evening chess clubs and hobbies clubs have been introduced. By the end of this month, prisoners on these wings will have access to showers there. The governor, with the help of regional office at Woking, is now examining proposals in order to improve the regime in other parts of the prison.
However, the chief inspector also found some positive features in the existing regime. He commented on the large amount of devoted work which is being undertaken by the staff. This was also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. As I say, he noted the large amount of work carried out in a devoted fashion. He mentioned favourably the industries at the prison, which has spacious workshops providing some 450 places in tailoring, textiles, carpentry, brushmaking and contract services, as well as work being undertaken in the laundry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked why 37 beds in the hospital were not being used. The chief inspector and his team criticised the prison hospital because they found that ward facilities were under-used and that hospital staff were employed on administrative rather than nursing duties. A thorough appraisal of the hospital accommodation, staff and facilities was recommended.
This recommendation has been accepted by the Director of Prison Medical Services, and a thorough appraisal of the hospital accommodation, staff and facilities has been carried out. There happened to be no particular call on some of the ward facilities. The opportunity has been taken to have a thorough review in order to use the space which is available more efficiently.
The medical director has also taken steps to strengthen medical management within the establishment, and it is expected that at least two hospital officers who are at present engaged on administrative duties will be released to nursing duties shortly.
These measures, taken together, will enable the hospital facility at Wansdworth to play a significantly greater part in the medical and nursing care of prisoner patients in the South-East region. I am most grateful to the chief inspector for the impetus he has given to furthering that desirable objective.
We welcomed the wide-ranging nature of the chief inspector's report. Work was put in hand on many other matters which the report brought to the attention of the director general, the regional director and the governor.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was kind enough to give me advance notice about the points about which he was concerned. He highlighted some of the recommendations, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I can assure your Lordships that the Government have been acting

1301
upon them. For example, a second bowl and a second towel will be issued to each inmate as soon as supplies are received. The recommended improvements in the arrangements for showers and for changes of clothing are being met.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether we can guarantee one shower a week. I can tell the noble Lord that that is in fact the aim. However, the question of unforeseen staff demands, such as escort duty and so on, may on occasion make this difficult. I cannot give him a guarantee but I can tell him that it is our aim that this should be so.
A project is being started on the introduction of a personal kit system. Inmates can now buy stamps from their private cash and there are also proposals further to improve the canteen facilities by providing separate facilities for G, H and K wings and for the rest of the prison.
As your Lordships will be aware, the prison department has a thorough procedure for following up inspection reports. This report itself will be followed up by the Deputy Director General of the Prison Service, and he has arranged to visit Wandsworth in the near future in order to do so. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons will be informed of the progress on his recommendations.
The chief inspector commended staff at Wandsworth for coping as well as they do, and he noted a determination in the senior staff to see through the alterations which had been started. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also commended the work carried out by the staff at Wandsworth. I am grateful to him for his remarks because the staff receive some fairly robust treatment at times. It is good to know, despite the difficulties, that their work is appreciated. Moreover, I should certainly like to express my thanks to them for their work.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, perhaps I may just ask the Minister about the part of the report which refers to the department's failure to produce the 10 officers who under the framework agreement were owing to the prison on 1st April. He has spoken on several occasions about the shortages of staff and what would happen should the situation continue. Can he comment on that part of the report?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have tried to cover most matters in my response. If I may, I should prefer to leave that part of the report for the moment. However, if necessary, I shall investigate the matter and write to the noble Baroness accordingly.
We all recognise the fact that there is much to be done at Wandsworth. The chief inspector's report provides a generally realistic and encouraging prescription. We are all concerned to put this into practice as soon as possible. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that our discussions this evening have shown just how valuable this kind of a debate can be. He has been good enough to put the matter forward and I must say that it has given noble Lords the opportunity to express their concern. I hope that it has given me the opportunity of, if not allaying such concerns, at least telling your Lordships what is being done and how the Government see the matter.

Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.] 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 shall be ordered to be read the third time.
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.

Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
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 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 shall be ordered to be read the third time.
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.

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
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 shall be ordered to be read the third time.
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.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 6th NOVEMBER
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 6th NOVEMBER
  MRS. DAPHNE PARISH AND MR. FARZAD BAZOFT
  MRS. DAPHNE PARISH AND MR. FARZAD BAZOFT
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM: RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS
  NATIONAL CURRICULUM: RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS
  ADMIRALTY RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, HOLTON HEATH
  ADMIRALTY RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, HOLTON HEATH
  TANK REPLACEMENT
  TANK REPLACEMENT
  TANK MANUFACTURING CAPACITY
  TANK MANUFACTURING CAPACITY
  NATIONAL TRUST: EC GRANTS
  NATIONAL TRUST: EC GRANTS
  GUN CLUBS: CONTROLS
  GUN CLUBS: CONTROLS
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: BROGAN CASE RULING
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: BROGAN CASE RULING