Sitting of 4 December 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

    TRADE STATISTICS
    THE COMPTROLLER OF HER MAJESTY'S HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 (Amendment of Schedule) Order 1990 be made in the form of a draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    "Options for Change"
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the impact upon local economies following reductions in forces following "Options for Change".
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Local economic and environmental factors will be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Fisher: I thank the Minister of State for that informative reply. I welcome the defence cuts, but I am concerned that the Government may implement them using solely market forces and a laissez faire policy. As the Government have at last accepted what we have been urging on them for some time—that there are real benefits in the peace dividend—will the Minister go the extra mile with us and accept that the reductions must be planned? Will he set up an arms conversion agency to plan them, so that when cuts are made in factories such as Radway Green in north Staffordshire and around the country the real benefits and skills there are used for constructive and positive purposes?
    Mr. Clark: The cuts are being framed not around market forces but around the minimal requirement to ensure that this country is adequately defended against our enemies. The question of an arms compensation fund or conversion agency, or whatever Labour Members call it from time to time, is a hoary attempt by the Labour party to introduce interventionism and Government subsidy. What you are asking for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I meant "you" plural. Opposition Members seen to be aiming for a scheme whereby good taxpayers' money is used to counter-guess the commercial judgment of arms companies.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Leeds there is great pride in the skill and commitment at the Vickers tank factory in Barnbow? Will he confirm that the Challenger tank is performing according to requirements in the middle east and that the company is giving full support to British forces there? When will he be able to reach a decision on the Chieftain replacement?
    Mr. Clark: I can confirm what my hon. Friend said. Challenger is performing extremely well in the region. I see the operational readiness figures every month, which show that it has averaged more than 90 per cent. throughout the period that it has been there, which included several difficult and strenuous exercises. Generally, it has taken part to the maximum in the preparations and the manoeuvres that are taking place at the moment.
    Mr. Rogers: The Minister is on record as saying that he gives no thought to ethics in regard to defence procurement. Does that now apply to job losses in defence? Is his attitude just to leave defence cuts to market forces, putting thousands of people out of jobs? Is not it clear that the Minister does not have any ethics in relation to this aspect of defence procurement?
    Mr. Clark: What a feeble question. The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the much better articulated question that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) asked. I have told him that, at all times, our first consideration must be to ensure that the country is properly defended. All of us agree that job losses are to some extent inevitable as defence orders for particular items of equipment contract. Those companies are extremely successful. Their commercial judgment will govern their decisions and I have every confidence that in the long term they will benefit from conversion to peaceful activity.
    Mr. Trotter: Will my hon. Friend confirm that whatever the outcome of the "Options for Change" policy, there will, in the near future, be a need to buy a new main battle tank for the Army? Can he confirm that Challenger not only performed satisfactorily in Saudi, but has met all the milestones of development of Challenger 2 satisfactorily, on time and within cost? Does he accept that it would be wholly wrong economically, militarily and industrially to buy foreign tanks when we have a successful British product available?
    Mr. Clark: I am aware of all those factors and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of them. I can confirm that all the milestones have largely been met.

    Nuclear Weapons
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the Secretary-General of NATO to discuss the role of nuclear weapons.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): I shall meet the Secretary-General of NATO when I am in Brussels later this week for NATO ministerial meetings. Nuclear issues will be among the topics that will be discussed.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Secretary of State recall last year's NATO commitment to start negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons? Will he move speedily to

    159
    support the mandate for talks to bring about the third zero, bearing in mind our commitment, under the non-proliferation treaty, to negotiate for disarmament?
    Mr. King: The NATO review is continuing. The hon. Lady will know that, after the successful NATO summit in London in July, it was agreed by all the parties present that the alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, and that work is continuing. The House will welcome the fact that, clearly, there will be a substantial reduction in nuclear warheads in Europe, but not on a unilateral basis.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members fully support the Ministers' statement earlier this year? We accept the mix of nuclear weapons and we understand that that will be necessary as long as the Soviet Union—and not only the Soviet Union—retains a nuclear capability and to ensure that we can defend ourselves against threats from outside the NATO area.
    Mr. King: I well understand why my hon. Friend makes that shrewd and perceptive point. Although we certainly wish to see far fewer nuclear weapons in the world, his point has great validity.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: What assurances will the Secretary of State be able to give the secretary-general when he meets him about the effectiveness of the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent? In the light of the reasons for the scrapping of Warspite, will he be able to assure the secretary-general that the United Kingdom is capable of keeping one submarine on station at all times?
    Mr. King: That is our determination, as we made clear to the House.

    Community Charge
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had recently concerning the effect of the community charge upon service men.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I have had discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend is well aware of my long-standing concern about the effect of the community charge on service men. Can he confirm that certain councils are not following Government guidelines to waive community charge for service men who are serving in the Gulf? Does he agree that that is disgraceful?
    Mr. Hamilton: Indeed, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. The Government have now advised local authorities to remove personnel who have been posted to the Gulf or to other overseas locations from the community charge register. I am happy to say that the great majority of councils have complied with that advice. However, Gosport and Helston councils have refused to do so.
    Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is far too important an issue to be left to the whim of local government? Is he aware that local councils will be looking at such community charge payers as a further means of increasing the money that they will be able to spend and
    160
    that they will be reluctant to exclude tens of thousands of service men from paying the community charge year after year? Should not the community charge be paid directly from the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment are looking at the whole question of the future of the community charge and I am sure that they will take the position of service men into account. On the question whether people are removed from the register when they are posted abroad, we would appeal to the public-spiritedness of the local authorities concerned. It is very disappointing that those two councils have not complied.

    European Fighter Aircraft
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the development European fighter aircraft are now under construction; and when he expects the completed prototype to undertake its first flight.
    Mr. Alan Clark: All eight of the development European fighter aircraft are now under construction. The first prototype is due to fly in late spring 1992 in Germany.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that, by the late 1990s, the European fighter aircraft will be a vital replacement for the Phantom aircraft, which will be obsolete by then? In view of that fact, and in view of the recurrent rumours that we hear about the German Government's position, can my hon. Friend give us a categorical assurance that the aircraft will, indeed, reach the production stage?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The aircraft should ensure our air superiority in the late 1990s and in the early part of the next century. My hon. Friend cited the Phantom as an example, but the EFA will be superior to all existing fighter aircraft, including American F-18 and F-15 enhancements. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks: the British Government are fully behind the project and intend to see it completed.
    Mr. Cryer: But is not the EFA project a collaborative project, which depends on other countries' participation? Instead of depending wholly on defence contracts of this nature, which are extremely costly—at £7 billion in this case—would not it be prudent for the Government to develop civilian aircraft prototypes so that we can participate in the developments in civil aircraft? Otherwise, if the project fails, thousands of people—including highly skilled technicians—may be thrown on the dole as a result of the Government's lack of awareness.
    Mr. Clark: In principle, what the hon. Gentleman says is indisputable, but, unfortunately, there is very little civil demand for a single-seater aircraft with the speed of Mach 2.
    Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend happy that the major elements that make up the European fighter aircraft have been developed satisfactorily and as far as is possible in the experimental stage before being incorporated in the main contract? Will he confirm that the plane has an expectancy of service well into the year 2000 and beyond?
    Mr. Clark: I can certainly confirm that. Component development and testing are part of the development phase, to which all the participants have now signed up.

    "Options for Change"
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a further statement on the study, "Options for Change".
    Mr. Tom King: Consistent with the broad proposals for change that I outlined in July, we have already announced the early retirement of 11 Royal Naval warships and the decision not to proceed with the order for the eighth batch of Tornado attrition aircraft. We have most recently announced our plans for withdrawing units from RAF Wildenrath and RAF Gutersloh. Further announcements on other changes should be possible in the coming months.
    Mr. Duffy: Whatever reshaping of the armed forces follows the review, does the Secretary of State agree that defence of the United Kingdom air space will remain the fundamental responsibility of the Government and that it will call for early warning?perhaps most important, airborne early warning—Can the Secretary of State comment on the progress of the airborne warning and communication system?
    Mr. King: I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. We shall continue to depend on a comprehensive air defence capability and it will be our clear responsibility to ensure that that is achieved. The AWACS programme is proceeding on time and the first planes will be starting service in the first months of the coming year.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be great disappointment in the north of England if, as a result of "Options for Change", the long-promised move of the department of quality assurance from Woolwich to Teesside did not take place? Does he accept that, if that department were not moved, the only acceptable outcome for people in the north would be for the Defence General Directorate of Quality Assurance to be cancelled in its entirety?
    Mr. King: I can assure my hon. Friend that the answer to his first question is yes, as he has never ceased to remind me of it. I congratulate him, together with other hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), on their diligence in the matter. I well understand my hon. Friend's concern. There is more disappointment to come for many hon. Members. We cannot talk about "Options for Change" or, as others do somewhat unrealistically at times, about the peace dividend and not recognise that a peace dividend may be a loss-of-jobs dividend for many people. We shall obviously seek to anticipate that and to give the greatest warning that we can, but I should be wrong if I concealed from the House the reality of what we are embarked on, which was generally supported by the House, but it has consequences, as hon. Members will understand.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State go further and elaborate on what the Minister of State said in a rather glib answer? While the product and the assets might be specific, skills are less flexible. In view of his serious remarks, will the Secretary of State immediately enter into discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
    162
    Scotland and get in touch with Scottish Enterprise to ensure that a skills survey is done and that jobs in the public sector, mainly in the Ministry of Defence in Scotland, are not lost to Scotland and that skills are not dissipated?
    Mr. King: It did not need an announcement from me for many companies to make their own assessment of the future, and all my contacts with the industries concerned have shown that there has been considerable diversification. I should trust the ability of those companies to identify where markets are likely to be rather than try to pre-plan them centrally, which has proved disastrous in the past. Obviously, we recognise a keen interest in the matter. We shall seek to keep hon. Members closely informed on their constituency and industrial interests. We are proceeding with "Options for Change". I can confirm that, as was made clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), and it will have implications for several hon. Members.
    Mr. Franks: When my right hon. Friend makes his further statement, will he be in a position to state the time scale for the SSN20, which is the follow-on from the Trafalgar class submarine? If there is to be any delay in the statement, will he bear in mind how helpful it would be to the company and, more important, to the work force and the whole community of Barrow if the Government's intentions could be made clear?
    Mr. King: I understand my hon. Friend's close interest in those matters, which he represents to us most energetically. Obviously, I understand the importance to all the people of Barrow of an early announcement. I cannot comment any further today, but I confirm that we are very conscious of the matter and will seek to keep in close touch with my hon. Friend.

    CFE Treaty
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications for the United Kingdom of the conventional forces in Europe treaty signed in Paris in November.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: The consequent improvements to European security and stability will be of substantial benefit to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Battle: While we welcome the encouraging peace developments in the Paris treaty, we would all accept that that is in the worst economic circumstances for manufacturing industry, in particular engineering. If the Government can subsidise consultancies for companies under the enterprise initiative, which is paid for by taxpayers, why are they so resistant to setting up an agency to tackle the conversion from arms manufacture to peacetime and civil industry?
    Mr. Hamilton: The reason is simple-it is because we have experienced central planning from Government and interference in industry and it has been notoriously unsuccessful. The most unproductive companies have been supported and that has led to reducing the chance of survival of successful companies.
    Mr. Colvin: Now that the CFE treaty has been signed and the German elections are out of the way, why are our partners in the European fighter programme dragging

    163
    their feet over their whole-hearted commitment to it? The answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was welcome, but is Britain to proceed unilaterally with the project? What about our partners, bearing in mind the fact that next year some of the items with long lead times will have to be ordered?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can assure my hon. Friend that our partners in the EFA project are signed up to the development stage, so, whatever we have been hearing, I do not think that they have the option of pulling out.
    Dr. Reid: The loss of jobs in the defence industry should be a matter of great concern to us all, but I should like to put another matter to the Minister because his answer was less than forthcoming. The word "vacuous" sprang to mind, but it is probably too substantial a word. What progress has been made on the follow-on negotiations to CFE-1? When are those negotiations likely to begin? Can the Minister say something about the pledge in the Queen's Speech that the Government would be "active" in their pursuit of further conventional disarmament? What activities have they undertaken so far? What approach are the Government adopting? Finally, what are they seeking to achieve in further disarmament negotiations?
    Mr. Hamilton: Bodies are already meeting to plan the way ahead. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the CFE treaty still has to be ratified. The nearest estimate that I have heard of when that is due to happen is July next year. However, thought is being given to the follow-on from here and to what form that should take. Discussions are currently taking place on that matter.
    Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that when, under the terms of the Paris treaty, various sites in Europe are removed from military use, they will be restored to their former condition and that there will not be any toxic or long-term damage at those sites such as we have seen following the withdrawal of similar forces from the Warsaw pact and the eastern bloc?
    Mr. Hamilton: Any reductions in any force levels in central Europe will be carried out in conjunction with NATO to ensure that the residual forces have a coherence and military stature that makes some sense.

    Radiation Exposure
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and ratings have been exposed to nuclear radiation in the past four years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): Our records for the four years from 1986 to 1989 show that radiation dosimeters were issued respectively to 2,256, 2,546, 2,602 and 3,224 naval service personnel.
    Mr. Skinner: Why, in a democracy, do the Government not tell the Select Committee on Defence and the House of Commons the answer to the question that is on the Order Paper, which is: how many people have suffered from radiation? If the Minister cannot give us those figures, why, now that the cold war has ended, do we have nuclear submarines at all? Why not scrap them and use the money for the national health service?
    Mr. Carlisle: It is a basic principle of Ministry of Defence policy that all exposure to radiation should be fully justified and reduced wherever possible. The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not fair and I am sure that he has read the recent report from the Select Committee on Defence, which states:
    "We have been impressed by the firm commitment of the MOD and its contractors to achieving the highest standards of radiological protection for Service and civilian personnel."
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that most officers and ratings would be more likely to receive high doses of radiation from living in Cornwall or from flying in high-flying aircraft than from serving in nuclear submarines?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Exposure to radiation from the atmosphere is often substantially more than that received by naval personnel.
    Mr. Boyes: That is simply not true. It is a fact that because of serious problems with the Polaris fleet, naval personnel have been subject to levels of radiation that are in excess of the limit advised by the National Radiological Protection Board, which is 15 mSv per year. The Government are acting with gross irresponsibility in their attitude not only to naval strategy, but, more especially, to the health and safety of submariners.
    Mr. Carlisle: That is simply not true. We should not allow any naval personnel to suffer high levels of exposure. In fact, the exposure rates for people working inside submarines under the sea are much lower because they are protected from the exposure in the atmosphere to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) referred.

    Low Flying
    Mr. Steen: T: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding low-flying aircraft over national parks.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: My Department's policy is to spread low flying as widely as possible to minimise disturbance to those on the ground. This means that most areas, including national parks, will see some low flying.
    Mr. Steen: I recognise the need for training flights, but is the Minister aware that the national parks were set up as havens of tranquillity for the nation? Yet the public are banned from 100 square miles of Dartmoor for 10 months a year due to live firing by the Ministry of Defence, and when there are low-flying aircraft one needs earplugs to enjoy any recreation in the district. Will the Minister ensure that for two months of the year, in the summer, low-flying training is conducted elsewhere than in the national parks?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend has always been a doughty fighter on behalf of the national parks, but I think that he understands that we have to fly low if we are to have good pilots and an effective air force. The best policy is to spread low flying as widely as possible. If we were to keep low flying away from the national parks, we should have to concentrate it in more populated regions, but we try hard to keep low flying away from the national parks at weekends.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the British Telecom telephone system in the royal ordnance factories operates between 7 am and 5 pm, and if a low-flying aeroplane overshot one of the national parks and crashed into any of those royal ordnance factories in Great Britain those factories would be without a telephone service? Does the Secretary of State appreciate how serious this is? The royal ordnance factory in my constituency has one of the most pathetic telephone exchange systems—[Interruption.] Is the Secretary of State going to answer me?
    Mr. Carlisle: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but safety is our prime concern and only the most experienced pilots are allowed to fly low.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who unreservedly support the need for the Royal Air Force to be capable of flying low and fast, believe—as I do, representing 2,000 square miles of beautiful highland Scotland—that our tranquillity and peace is as important as anyone else's, but we appreciate that it must be sacrificed if the Royal Air Force is to continue to be capable of carrying out the role that it is now playing in the Gulf?
    Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps more than any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) understands the true needs of the defence of our country.

    Submarines (Log Books)
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the log books of all British submarines for the period between 12 noon and 4 pm on 5 September 1988.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: No, Sir. However, unclassified extracts from Royal Navy submarine log books for the period in question have been given to the High Court. We always make every effort to help the courts, subject only to security considerations.
    Dr. Thomas: My question refers to the log relevant to the Inspire. Since the incident involving that ship, the Government have made it known that the Royal Navy held some responsibility for the loss of the Antares. There has been a loss of probably 53 people, involving 16 trawlers between Britain and Ireland since 1980. Will the Government set up an independent inquiry into those tragic losses?
    Mr. Hamilton: The loss of the Antares was a great tragedy, but 380 fishing boats have been lost in the past 10 years, of which the Royal Navy has admitted responsibility for the sinking of one. The question whether the loss of the Antares was the responsibility of a Royal Navy submarine still remains to be confirmed by a court of inquiry.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great apprehension and fear among fishermen using the Irish sea and among their families? Will he do something positive to alleviate it?
    Mr. Hamilton: Yes, indeed. A meeting between flag officers of submarines and representatives of the fishing industry is organised for this coming Friday, and I hope
    166
    that they will be able to reach some agreement about an exchange of information which will be helpful in this matter.
    Dr. Godman: In view of the tragic sinking of the mot or fishing vessel Antares, surely when submarines steam through the traditional fishing grounds in the Irish sea and in and around the Firth of Clyde, there is a simple solution in this post cold war era: the Minister should instruct the commanders of the submarines to sail their vessels on the surface. Does the Minister agree that that would bring heartfelt relief to fishermen and their families throughout the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Hamilton: We must accept that the accident involving the Antares was exceptional. There have been only two such incidents, if this one involved a submarine. There has been only one other incident in the past 10 years. We have to ensure that our submarines operate secretly, they have to operate under water and it is important that they operate in inshore waters. I am afraid that that is an essential requirement of good submarine capability.

    The Gulf
    Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British troops in the Gulf states.
    Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of casualties in the event of war in the Gulf; and what medical treatment arrangements have been made.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are now in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total number of troops deployed by the United Kingdom in the middle east to date.
    Mr. Tom King: The Government hope that economic pressure and the diplomatic moves now under way will secure Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. However, by the adoption of Security Council resolution 678, the international community has shown that it is also prepared to use all necessary means, including military force. To help ensure that Saddam Hussein will face a credible military option, more than 30,000 United Kingdom forces, including medical and other support services, are now being committed to the Gulf. Around 17,000 of those are already there. If Saddam Hussein continues to defy the United Nations resolutions and force has to be used, the stronger the allied force, the better the chances of keeping casualties low.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, if the worst comes to the worst and war breaks out over Kuwait, the Tornados built at Salmesbury in Preston, Lancashire, will probably save thousands of lives of troops on the ground by destroying enemy aircraft. Will he therefore examine the need for spares and for further aircraft, with a possible view to saving many of the thousands of jobs in Preston and at the factory that British Aerospace plans to close?
    Mr. King: I can certainly confirm that the Tornado, with its strike attack capability and night-flying capability,

    167
    and the Tornado F3 air defence variant, are key elements in our capability. I can say nothing more about further orders at this stage, but I certainly pay tribute to the quality of the aircraft.
    Mr. James Lamond: Given the tremendous response by the people of this country to the telethon in aid of the Save the Children Fund and the Government's claim to be acting in the name of these same people in seriously contemplating launching an attack which must result in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children in the Gulf, does the Minister detect an irony in that?
    Mr. King: The Government do not want to see conflict, and we do not want to launch any attack. We want to see freedom and justice for the people of Kuwait. The Government and the whole world, with the exception of Iraq, have made that clear and so has the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party and his Front-Bench spokesmen. There has been overwhelming support in the House for the need to back the strong stance of the United Nations. No sane person seeks conflict, but if one is not prepared to use the threat of the military option, the alternative is the continuing enslavement of Kuwait, the continuing subjugation of its people and the continuing imprisonment of the hostages.
    Mr. Nellist: Does the Secretary of State for Defence recognise that I have repeatedly tried to get comments from the former Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and himself on the estimates that have been made the likely level of casualties if war were to break out? What has the right hon. Gentleman to say to Brigadier Patrick Cordingley, commander of the Desert Rats, who believes that if a war breaks out there will be a bloodbath on both sides, and that the British Government should tell the British people officially that the British casualty rate will be about 15 per cent. or, on the figures that given today, that 4,500 troops will die? Does the Secretary of State not realise that an increasing number of people in this country do not believe that that sacrifice is warranted and that, frankly, blood and oil do not mix?
    Mr. King: The first thing that the hon. Gentleman had better learn is that when people quote casualty figures they include minor and serious casualties and not just fatalities. It is quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to offer that to the House because it is a total error. I will not bandy figures with the hon. Gentleman. I have answered his question. At the end of my answer I gave the precise reason for Britain's sending more forces and I also said why the United States, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had increased recruitment. It is precisely to ensure that if the military option had to be used—and nobody wants to see that—the operation would be short, sharp and quick so that casualties on the allied side could be kept to a minimum. That is the reality of what we want to see.
    Mr. Nellist: The right hon. Gentleman should not have sold them the arms in the first place.
    Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman cares about life and the avoidance of casualties, he should turn one eighth of that volume in the direction of Baghdad and tell Saddam Hussein to obey the United Nations. Then we would see a solution.
    Mr. Squire: In direct contradiction to the last two questions, is my right hon. Friend aware that the British
    168
    public are very well aware of the efforts being made by the free world to free a part of the world that is now subjugated, and if those efforts fail they fully expect our forces to play a part in freeing Kuwait in defence of basic human rights?
    Mr. King: I think that the whole House, and all those who have considered these matters, will admit that the nations of the free world have stood together in a way that one would not have thought possible as recently as a month or two ago. The unanimity and agreement of the five permanent members of the Security Council have been important factors. In a very real sense, the authority of the United Nations is now at stake.
    Mr. O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for the arrangements that he made for some of my hon. Friends and me to visit the Gulf. We are conscious of the high morale of our troops, their measured approach, their professionalism and the respect that they enjoy from their allies. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that our troops have the spares and supplies that they require to sustain the armoured divisions and especially the tanks?
    Secondly, on a more domestic note, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that every effort is being made to improve the dreadful telephone facilities which are the main means of contact between our troops and their loved ones and that British Telecom and Mercury are being given the kick in the backside that they deserve because of their failure over the past few months to provide an adequate and cheap means of communication between our troops and their loved ones in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. King: I am grateful for the hon. Member's thanks, and I am glad that the Select Committee, Opposition spokesmen and others found it a valuable visit. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not pick up those reports of shortages while in Saudi Arabia. I have seen newspaper reports here, but in Saudi Arabia our forces feel that they are getting the support for which they are looking. We are determined to see that they do and I shall not rest until we succeed. Tomorrow, I am on my way to NATO and I shall have with me a short list of suggestions of some of the matters on which our allies can help us so as to ensure that we have the resources.
    We are working hard on the telephone connections. I am grateful to British Telecom and Mercury for what they are doing. However, the House must understand that there will be problems when 20,000 people try to ring home around Christmas day. On top of that, the United States forces will also wish to make telephone calls. We shall do the best that we can.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in deciding whether to exercise the military option, the Government and their allies will have to take into account not only the ghastly things that are happening in Kuwait, but the even more terrible consequences that could stem from Saddam Hussein being seen to get away with the aggression that he has committed and with developing nuclear weapons?
    Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend. One or two of the interventions from Opposition Members could have come only from people ignorant of what has been happening in Kuwait. No decent person could turn his fire on the United States and the United Kingdom and excuse

    169
    Saddam Hussein's Government and the Iraqi forces their unspeakable behaviour in Kuwait and their treatment of people there.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Prime Minister of New Zealand. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Archer: Has the right hon. Gentleman found time to consider which of the policies in which he participated over the past 11 years he now regrets and proposes to change? If the answer is that the Major revolution amounts to no more than requiring back-seat drivers to belt up, what benefits have the public received in exchange for the expensive telephone bills incurred by Government Departments in the course of the past month's plotting?
    The Prime Minister: I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman one thing. There is one back-seat injunction that I shall not follow—I shall not turn left.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Paice: Has my right hon. Friend seen this morning's press tribute to his and my county of Cambridgeshire for the way it has given as much management control to schools as if those schools had adopted grant-maintained status? Will he compare that with the proposal to introduce new, politically appointed bureaucracies, which may aim high but will inevitably lower standards to that of the lowest standard achievable, as one would expect of Labour party policies?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I saw this morning's papers and I know that Cambridgeshire county council has been innovative in education for a long time. I am delighted to see what it is now doing. I agree that expensive bureaucratic control of education will only withdraw resources from the classroom, whereas our policy is to ensure that resources remain in the classroom.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to the personal debt of gratitude that he owes to the national health service. Does he think that it would be right to discharge that debt by getting rid of hospital opt-out?
    The Prime Minister: Self-government within the NHS will improve management. That is why so many hospitals are seeking to opt out. In the past 10 years, more resources have been added to the NHS than anyone could have imagined. There is no doubt that in future the NHS will be at the centre of our concerns.
    Mr. Kinnock: It is clear that the Prime Minister intends to make no change for the better in the NHS. Is he not
    170
    aware that whenever a ballot has been held, consultants, hospital doctors, nurses, general practitioners and the general public have all voted by huge majorities against opting out? Does he realise that opt-out will intensify the crisis in the NHS? As the NHS has never done anything but good by him, why is he doing it so much harm?
    Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that to be the case, should not he make a start by trying to convince his constituents about the Hinchingbrooke hospital in his constituency, where waiting lists have doubled in the past two years? The local press has referred to a wall of opposition against opting out. Will the right hon. Gentleman support his constituents?
    The Prime Minister: Unlike some Opposition Members, I unfailingly use the NHS. Its future is entirely secure, with increased funding, as it has been for the past 10 years.
    The Prime Minister: Self-government is being proposed by the consultants and the staff at the Hinchingbrooke hospital, which holds the enormous affection of people in the area. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman something else about that hospital it was not available under the Labour Government—it was this Government who provided it.
    Mr. Higgins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Prime Minister and also on the speech that he made earlier today, which I thought embodied the spirit of the late lain Macleod. In that context, and in that spirit, may I ask him to give urgent consideration to two particular injustices—first, the position of those haemophiliacs suffering from AIDS as a result of blood products provided by the national health service and, secondly, the position of those who suffered as a result of being exposed to radiation from the atomic tests carried out immediately after world war 2? I do not expect him to give an answer off the top of his head—that would be unfashionable—but would he give those matters urgent consideration?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, I like to consider matters before reaching a conclusion. However, I shall certainly accept his injunction and do so.
    Mr. Ashdown: When the Prime Minister gave his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment what we now understand to be carte blanche for a fundamental review of the poll tax, did he rule out the option of abolishing it?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend and I will be discussing later today the precise remit for consideration.
    Mr. Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider the latest computer analysis from the Institute of Directors on the top-performing companies in Europe? Has he noted that there are more United Kingdom companies than German or French companies in the top 100 and does not that say far more about the underlying strength of the British economy than the economic illiteracy that we hear from the Leader of the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. There is absolutely no doubt about the revolution in the prospects for this country over the past decade.

    Henley-on-Thames
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Henley-on-Thames.
    The Prime Minister: I have no present plans to do so.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Prime Minister finally gets round to going to Henley and perhaps having a rubber chicken dinner with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he tell the voters of Henley why he has managed to offend the Welsh, the blacks and others—[Interruption.] including women, in his first seven days in office? Is that how he intends to start building his classless society?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was writing down the question that he intended his hon. Friend to ask and not the one that his hon. Friend did ask. In so far as the question presumably relates to Mr. Taylor, the prospective Conservative candidate in Cheltenham, the reported remarks—which I understand have been denied—are not sentiments that have any place in our party.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the branch line to Henley-on-Thames remains intact? Does he recognise that if more decisions of that nature had been taken by British Rail in the past few years, and fewer decisions of the kind taken following the disastrous Beeching report, many more of our fellow citizens would today have the opportunity to travel by train which has been denied them by the closures of recent years?
    The Prime Minister: I was aware of the excellent service from Henley. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment reports to me regularly on it.

    Engagements
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Prime Minister aware that in some areas, particularly Sheffield, general practitioners have been prevented from prescribing certain drugs to patients, in particular young children? Without rattling out the old figures about how many patients are being treated under the NHS, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether under his Government patients and, in particular, young children will be denied the medication and treatment that they need?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman that the district health authority in his area has substantially more cash than in previous years, that the treatment of in-patients and out-patients has risen and that the quantum and quality of health treatment rises yearly.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one group of our citizens who should not be subjected to the community charge are British hostages in the Gulf?
    172
    Will he agree to issue an advice to that effect, or even a directive under primary legislation, so that uncertainty, anxiety and anger can be removed?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will find that we have already sent such advice to local authorities.
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Prime Minister reflect on the case of my constituent, John Hall, who is dying of leukaemia, which he contracted while working on Christmas Island? Will the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the first acts of his new Administration, reverse the Government's policy and in compassion, humanity and justice, provide John Hall and the other nuclear test veterans with the compensation that the House and the country believe that they so richly deserve?
    The Prime Minister: I will examine the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am not familiar with the details of his constituent. I will discuss it and examine it.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that today's performance has demonstrated that the two main parties have both the leaders and the policies for the next general election—for us to win, and for them to lose?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend It is not for me to reply for the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), but if he ever needs a campaign team, I will lend him mine.
    Mr. Rees: The Prime Minister will recall that the Queen's Speech promised that a Bill would be introduced to give our courts jurisdiction to try alleged war criminals. Does that promise still stand?
    The Prime Minister: That Bill is in the Government's programme and it will be presented to the House. There will be suggested amendments that the House will want to examine.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Those of us of a particular generation well remember when the Russian and British people were together, when Mrs. Churchill led the campaign to support the Russian people. In the present circumstances, will not only the British Government but the British people respond as they did during the last war?
    The Prime Minister: There is considerable concern in this country about the difficulties faced by the Russian people and by President Gorbachev. There is also great warmth in this country for the changes brought about in the Soviet Union under Mr. Gorbachev's presidency. That feeling exists not only in the House but throughout the European Community and I have no doubt that the situation in Russia will be one of many matters discussed at forthcoming Community meetings.

National Health Service Trusts
3.30 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his decisions on the applications by hospitals and other units to become self-governing.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about which national health service hospitals and units will become self-governing trusts in April 1991.
In answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I am announcing today my decisions on the 66 trust applications that I have been considering for implementation in April next year. I am also announcing my decisions on a further 111 expressions of interest that hospitals and other units have submitted for becoming NHS trusts on 1 April 1992. A full list of all my decisions is in the Vote Office and the Library.
The House will appreciate from the number of applications that it is not practicable to read them all out, or to give detailed descriptions of the units included in each trust.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there are several hundred separate hospitals and units involved, affecting the constituencies of several hundred right hon. and hon. Members. I thought that it would be more helpful to give right hon. and hon. Members the information in written form initially.
Given the Opposition's request for a full statement, I am delighted to have this opportunity to restate the principles that underpinned my decisions. NHS trusts are a central element in our plans for reforming the NHS and improving the service that it provides for patients. No one should be in any doubt that trusts are, and will remain, within the NHS. They are not opting out of the NHS. They are opting into greater freedom to run their own affairs—freedom from much of the bureaucracy of district and regional health authorities, and indeed, Whitehall.
We have not been short of volunteers, and today's announcement is the result of a very vigorous selection process. In making my decisions, I have been concerned to satisfy myself on four key criteria. They are benefits to patients; leadership and management; involvement of key professional staff in management; and financial viability.
Against that background, I am delighted to say that, having considered all the applications and the comments made on them during the consultation process, I have decided to establish 56 NHS trusts to become operational on 1 April next year. I believe that those trusts will use the greater powers and freedoms that we are giving them to pioneer further improvements to the quality of care for patients that are at the heart of our reforms.
I received 10 other applications for trust status that had also been the subject of extensive consultation. The sponsors of two of those applications, from the proposed North Devon healthcare trust and the proposed Brighton hospitals trust, have asked me to defer their applications, and I have agreed. I am confident that those applicants have the potential to become successful trusts in the future.
I am confident also that the remaining eight applicants have the same potential to become successful. trusts. However, I believe that, given the very significant management tasks that they face, it would not be right to
174
establish them as trusts now. I know that that decision will come as a disappointment, and I have written to each trust setting out my decisions.
I have also decided that a further 111 hospitals and other units that expressed an interest in trust status can proceed to work up applications to become operational in April 1992. I should make it clear that those expressions of interest in no way commit the hospitals or other units to making an application. I shall also be considering four further expressions of interest from colleges of nursing.
The response to the trust initiative shows that those working in the NHS understand, and are keen to take advantage of, the very real benefits of trust status. It is very likely that over time, trust status will be the natural model for units providing patient care. My decision to establish the first wave of trusts marks a further step in the implementation of our programme of reforms. It underlines the Government's commitment to the NHS and to improving the quality of care for patients.
Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, until we tabled this private notice question, it was his intention to make his statement at a press conference at 3.30 pm? On reflection, does he not agree that a statement of such importance was better made in the House than to the press, and that his protestations of delight would be more convincing had he offered a statement to the House in the first place?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that today's announcement makes a mockery of the consultation process? Is he aware that more than 70 ballots have been held in the communities served by the hospitals concerned? Does he know—does he care—that, on average, 83 per cent. of local general practitioners voted against the applications, and that an average of 88 per cent. of local staff voted against them? Has anyone dared to tell him that the people of Bristol voted six to one against the application by the hospitals that serve his constituency?
How can the right hon. Gentleman claim that today's decision gives local people local control, when he has flatly ignored local opinion? Why will not he publish the report that he himself commissioned to audit the business plans of the applicants? Has he seen the independent report produced by New Church and Co., which concludes that many of the applications are almost totally devoid of realistic financial objectives? How can he ask Parliament to accept the transfer of ownership of hospital assets worth over £3,000 million without serious financial figures?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the boards of directors of the trusts, which he tells us will not leave the NHS, will own the hospitals and be able to sell parts of them; that they will hire the staff, and will be able to fire the staff; that they can decide on patient services and close patient services; and that, in every regard, their powers will be identical to those of the directors of any hospital now in the private sector? Given those powers, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who will be appointed as directors? Will they be the same business men—the same friends of the Conservative party—with whom the Government have already peopled health authorities?
Does the Secretary of State understand that forcing those hospitals to go it alone as trading enterprises will break up the NHS—that, after today, those 56 units will no longer co-operate with other hospitals in serving the public, but will compete against them for business? Is not the game given away by the many applications that. The

175
right hon. Gentleman has approved today from those who make it only too plain that they intend to use NHS facilities to treat more private patients?
Finally, will the Secretary of State be generous enough to acknowledge the authorship of the policy that he has confirmed today? May I tempt him to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who chaired the NHS review body that came up with the policies that she put into practice? Does he appreciate that his announcement demonstrated that, while the faces may change, the health policies of the present Government stay the same, and will convince many who use the hospitals on his list of the case for a Labour Government who will bring those hospitals smartly back into the local NHS?
Mr. Waldegrave: Over the years, I have noticed that, when the Opposition do not have much of a case, they try to make a synthetic row about the manner of an announcement. So keen was I to hide this important announcement that I wrote to every hon. Member involved and provided all the material in the Vote Office. I am delighted to have the opportunity to reaffirm this policy.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a point about ballots and asked whether anybody had dared to tell me things. I wonder whether anyone in his action groups up and down the land dared to tell him that many of the ballots that he quoted have been reversed. I happen to know of one near my constituency in Weston-super-Mare, where the ballot that he quoted, which went one way, was subsequently reversed by 80 to 20. The hon. Gentleman quoted Bristol. I know a little more about Bristol than he does. There was a subsequent ballot there, too. Did anybody dare to tell him that? I think not.
The point of trusts, surely, is to meet the objective that all of us have heard from our constituents up and down the land for many years: "Can't we get the management of hospitals back to hospitals, where it belongs?" How many times have we heard that in our constituencies?
The hon. Gentleman said that assets can be sold off. What nonsense. The instruments to set up the trusts, which we shall lay today and tomorrow, will reserve powers to the Secretary of State—powers similar to those to prevent district authorities from doing the same thing.
Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct for the Minister to speak knowing that he is not telling us the truth?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw that allegation.
Mr. Flannery: I shall reword it in case you, Mr. Speaker, throw me out, as you have before. I withdraw—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please leave this to me.
Mr. Flannery: Is it right for the Secretary of State to be so economical with the truth?
Mr. Speaker: Unhappily, that phrase has come into the language.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who may have become over-excited, will find nothing untrue or economical with
176
the truth in what I have said. On the contrary, up and down the land, campaigns have been somewhat economical with the truth. I have one here that was issued in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), which refers to
"Opting out of the NHS"
and concerns over opting out of the NHS. There is no question whatever of any of these hospitals opting out of the NHS.
The hon. Member for Livingston asked me to confirm whether we stand by the policies that we passed. Of course we do. They will bring benefits to patients and will achieve devolved management of the kind that both sides of the House, if they think about it quietly, should be in favour of.
Mr. John Battle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman makes his point of order, may I say that it will take up time? This is a private notice question and time is limited. What is the point of order?
Mr. Battle: The point of order is that it is difficult when the Conservative party plays games with the language. The phrase "opt out" was clearly used in the White Paper, but now we are being told that that is not the language that is being used. How can we oppose the policy?
Mr. Speaker: This is a private notice question. As Front-Bench spokesmen have said, the House is being informed rather than the press. We shall no doubt return to it on numerous occasions.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that self-government is the natural progression and development of the purchaser-provider concept, which now has widespread support, and will afford not only local control but local decision making to our hospitals? He announced that 56 hospitals have been successful in applying for trust status. Will he confirm that their plans include, far from a standstill in services, more consultants, a reduction in waiting times, renovation of wards, closer co-operation with general practitioners and speedier development of the community care programme? Does not that show that, under this Government, the best resources will be matched with the best management?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In every organisation of which I know, the management is better when it is brought nearer to where the real work is done. The instinctive reaction of the Labour party is always to go for an administrative, top-down and bureaucratic solution; that is not the best solution in each application—and I have studied them all closely—there are interesting and attractive proposals for how the hospitals will be improved.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Secretary of State aware that this confirmation of a Thatcherite approach to the health service today represents 56 nails in the coffin of a nationally funded and nationally delivered system of health care? If the consultation between self-governing trusts and the health authorities is as much a mockery as the consultation carried out by the Department of Health in assessing the applications, what hope can there be at local level that there will be a proper spread of service delivery in the

177
health service? Did the right hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, whom he supported in the recent election for the leadership of his party, when he said that he considered that a review of the health service reforms would be one of the top items on his agenda if he became Prime Minister? Finally——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be unfair to the House during a private notice question for the hon. Gentleman to continue. He has asked his questions.
Mr. Waldegrave: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to talk such clichés. The hospitals will prove him wrong by providing better services to patients and people who have mouthed such clichés will look extremely foolish. I drafted that part of my right hon. Friend's speech, so I am thoroughly in favour of it. We shall be looking for further improvements, but the basic principles of the reform will go ahead.
Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that Bromley health authority will be disappointed that its applications have been refused. Will my right hon. Friend tell the authorities whose applications have been refused the grounds on which he felt unable to grant them? Will he also confirm that any subsequent applications, either in similar or in amended form, by those authorities will not be prejudiced by the fact that they have been refused in the first wave?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am delighted to give my hon. Friend those assurances. I have written today to the unit managers concerned to set out the problems that I thought needed to be further addressed before the trusts could go forward. I very much hope that that applications will come forward again next year and that they will win approval.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Under the public consultation, of the eight opt-outs that have been announced in the South West region, six voted overwhelmingly against the proposal. The Secretary of State clearly needs reminding that at the Bristol United hospitals—all the services in Bristol that cover his and my constituencies—the public consultation exercise conducted by the region produced a result of 83:1 against. The staff ballot conducted by the district health authority produced a result of 2,943 against and 255 in favour, although the Minister will not know that. He did not bother to take part in the consultation although he was a consultee. What right does he now have to override public opinion in Bristol? How can he call himself a democrat?
Mr. Waldegrave: The trouble with that argument is that the pre-printed forms and postcards were, in many cases, wholly misleading. An organisation called Labour Health watch—to which the hon. Lady may subscribe put roundstuff that said:
"We the undersigned totally object to … hospital or any of it's … outlying clinics or wards 'opting out' of the NHS."
One of the trust managers told me that he would sign a petition against his hospital opting out of the NHS and he would be quite right.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: With reference to the 1992 applications for NHS trust status, does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents are strongly opposed to the acute services and the community services in Macclesfield asking separately for trust status? Will he take it from me that there is strong support in my area for
178
the concept of the health authority as a whole opting for self-governing status? Will he instruct Sir Donald Wilson, the regional chairman, to stop interfering in my area? Those who serve on the health authority, the staff, the nurses, the patients and the people in my area want the whole health authority to opt for self-governing status. Will my right hon. Friend bring that about?
Mr. Waldegrave: There are arguments on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Opposition Members would be unwise to claim my hon. Friend as an ally, as he is arguing powerfully for an NHS trust, albeit a whole district trust. I shall have to consider the arguments carefully. There is an argument as to whether it is better for the mental health institutions to form part of a separate trust or of a whole district trust. We shall consider those matters carefully in the months ahead.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that it would be helpful if he published the assessments of the financial viability of those exceedingly doubtful business plans? With the exception of one small group of consultants, everyone in my constituency totally opposes the application, and the cavalier manner in which the Minister is ignoring local people's views will be justly interpreted as typical of the Conservatives' desire to wreck the national health service.
Mr. Waldegrave: What the hon. Lady says will be disproved by events. I advise her not to put herself out on a limb. The hospitals will be better run and they will be available to NHS patients as they have always been. The hon. Lady will have a lot of words to eat.
Mr. Paul Channon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, far from what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) claims, there will be a widespread welcome—certainly in my constituency—for the formation of self-governing trusts and that many people in my constituency realise that the arrangements are likely to lead to a better service? How will the system work for the approval of capital development schemes in the future? I am sure that it will work to the benefit of Southend.
Mr. Waldegrave: I think that there will be very successful developments at the hospitals in Southend when they are part of a trust. The capital allocations will come forward in due course. The new trusts will have a new system of external financing limits and those will be announced in due course.
Mr. Jim Cousins: The Freeman hospital had its application for self-governing trust status approved today. Can the Secretary of State assure us that its ambitions to create a monopoly on certain key regional services and to acquire certain key services from neighbouring hospitals will not be agreed until he and the regional health authority have intervened to judge whether that is in the wider interests of the people of Newcastle and the rest of the northern region?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am not sure that people understand that the district retains its duty to ensure proper coverage of all the health aspects. If proper coverage is not given, it is for the district to ensure that one of the providers in its area provides it. The region also remains involved. The hon. Gentleman need not heed the scare stories that people have been putting about.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's continuous use of the words "opt out" is nothing more than the cynical manipulation of the fears of the elderly and frail? The national health service hospitals will not be opting out of the health service; they will be delivering better quality and more efficient patient care. In view of that fact, is my right hon. Friend at all surprised that the Opposition want to abolish trust status hospitals?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The nearest thing that the Opposition have to a policy—it has been leaked extensively over the past few days—is simply to abolish everything. They are going as far as they can. They have the idea that we must have what they call competition—I do not think that it is competition—but their model is completely chaotic and I think that when it is published it will be a laughing stock.
Mr. Paul Boateng: In assessing the financial viability of the application by Central Middlesex hospital, which is opposed by staff and patients alike, has the Secretary of State considered whether the Central Middlesex hospital trust will be able to retain 100 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of land that is currently occupied by that hospital?
Mr. Waldegrave: It will be able to retain the proceeds from land vested in the trust.
Sir Giles Shaw: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on deciding to adopt the proposals for Leeds St. James's and Leeds general infirmary. I welcome the fact that the two district health authorities in Leeds are to be merged into one under the chairmanship of my constituent, Mrs. Pamela Smith. What will be the situation in regard to the massive capital project for Leeds general infirmary, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, is essential for that hospital to discharge its present duties?
Mr. Waldegrave: The allocation of capital, which I shall have to make in due course and which the regions in turn will make, will, in the first years, ensure those capital investments that a trust could have expected from a region. I hope that capital investments will be able to develop a little further. They will be subject to capital controls, as in all other hospitals.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State clearly said that details of the proposed trusts and the various applications will be made available in the Vote Office and in the House of Commons Library. Will similar information be available about proposed trusts in Scotland, or will the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland also be dragged screaming and kicking to the Dispatch Box?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady may have missed the fact that I was not screaming or kicking. I am delighted that certain Opposition Members are getting themselves out on a branch, which will fall off and that we have yet another opportunity to publicise our policy, which is getting wider and wider support in the country and will deliver the goods. I am the Secretary of State for Health in England and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has responsibility for health in Scotland, will doubtless make his own statement in his own time.
Mr. David Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome the commitment that he and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have given to the future of the National Health Service particularly because I, or rather my wife, as an NHS patient, had a son born in Musgrove Park hospital, Taunton, two months ago? Is my right hon. Friend aware also that, for that trust to achieve its full potential, more informing and persuading needs to be done before next April? In particular, is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance that we in Taunton attach to the beginning of the second phase of the development of Musgrove Park hospital as soon as possible?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend. Hon. Members will also join him in congratulating Musgrove Park hospital on the much more secure future that it will have. The announcement of the trusts will not end arguments about capital allocations in future. There will never be unlimited capital, but we shall try to allocate the capital that we have in a way that supports the kind of development to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Bruce George: I very much regret that the hospital in my constituency is added to the list. In the interests of fairness, will the Minister of State instruct the chairmen of the regional health authorities to publish the fullest possible results of the consultative process? Will the Secretary of State himself publish in the fullest possible detail his reasons for deciding that the hospitals will opt out? In the interests of fairness and in the interests of determining whether hon. Members' views are right, that information should be fully disclosed.
Mr. Waldegrave: It is up to the regions to disclose or not to disclose what they wish. The hon. Gentleman made a gesture that meant "opting out". That at least is progress compared with his hon. Friends. He understands that hospitals are not opting out of the national health service. The sooner that message gets across—a fair-minded man such as the hon. Gentleman will doubtless help us to get it across—the fewer unnecessary scare stories we shall have from the Opposition.
Sir Anthony Grant: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), when considering future applications direct from hospitals, will my right hon. Friend ensure that excessive weight is not given to the views of the regional health authorities, which are often excessively bureaucratic and which are not necessarily always in touch with local opinion? My right hon. Friend will realise that I have a particular and very famous hospital in mind.
Mr. Waldegrave: We are steadily streamlining and improving the standard of regional management. There is general consent now in the national health service that the standard of management is steadily improving, and it needs to. I note what my hon. Friend says, but I must advise him that I pay considerable attention to the advice of regional chairmen and their regional general managers.
Mr. Eddie Leyden: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread opposition to the opt-out measures being initiated by the regional health authorities? Does he realise that this will be a black day for the national health service, in view of his

181
answers today? The national health service does not belong to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Government; it belongs to the people. This is probably the most regressive step that has been taken this century in social policy. The right hon. Gentleman has left no doubt in my mind that his intention is to dismantle the national health service.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am well aware that there is widespread opposition to the policy of nonsense that the hon. Gentleman has just described. Luckily, nobody in this country has such a policy, which is why his anxieties can be laid to rest at once. The national health service belongs to all the people of this country, and the management of it should be in the hands of those who have most commitment to it, which is not the hon. Gentleman or me—it is those who work in the hospitals.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question. We have already exceeded the time that I should normally allow, but as this is a very important matter, I shall therefore call three more hon. Members from each side, but then we must move on. I shall certainly bear in mind those hon. Members who are not called today on future occasions—and I am sure that there will be future occasions on this important matter.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Why has my right hon. Friend decided not to establish Harefield hospital as an NHS trust, in view of the support of the medical staff and its pre-eminance as one of the hospitals engaged in heart transplant surgery?
Mr. Waldegrave: It was, indeed, a difficult decision because, in many ways, Harefield is an ideal hospital for trust status. I was also aware of the strong support in that hospital, and in very many others, for trust status. However, I had regrettably to conclude that it had not completed its plans in such a way that I could, with confidence, agree them. I very much hope that it will be ready for trust status next year.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State realise that this sad statement shows that we have a new salesman, but the same policy? In that context, does he agree that the succour of the sick within the principles of the national health service means that commercial criteria have no place? Because of the drop in land sales and the decrease in the value of land, £40 million has been cut from the money available for Newham general hospitals' much needed extension. Since we cannot trust the Government even to provide facilities that are wholly within what the right hon. Gentleman calls the health service, does not that show that we cannot trust the trusts either?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman was making. It is true that the price of land has fallen this year so, sadly, less money is available to the national health service from land sales. That is true, and we have taken account of that in our expenditure plans and in the public expenditure survey settlement for next year. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that what drives the health service is not commercial criteria at all, but that does not mean that we cannot learn useful things from the organisation of other businesses, including those in the private sector.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wise in this matter to be aware of a possible distinction between the interests of producer groups, including the unions, on the one hand, and the interests of consumers and patients on the other? Does he agree that this afternoon's proceedings make it clear that even the possibility of making that distinction has passed the Labour party by entirely?
Mr. Waldegrave: That is true; no real arguments have been made, except against a policy that does not exist—taking hospitals away from the national health service. We have established that both sides of the House would be against that, but luckily that is not our policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) made the far more interesting point that it will be far easier for people to do proper jobs in the national health service when the distinction is made between those responsible for providing services and those responsible for ensuring that those services are provided, which is a real distinction.
Mr. John Garrett: What benefits does the Minister expect from the Norfolk ambulance trust when its weighty application document gave no undertakings about future quality of service?
Mr. Waldegrave: That application, like others, argued that local, devolved management would provide a better service to patients, which I believe it will do.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the importance of the announcement is that decisions can be taken locally wherever possible? Is not the Labour party's fear that we might clip the wings of groups with vested interests, particularly the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, in which case we can, for once, agree?
Mr. Waldegrave: One of the proposals which the Labour party has at the heart of its commitment to the future and which would be catastrophic for the national health service, as for the rest of national life, is to unleash secondary picketing again, which would take us back to the winter of 1978–79.
Mr. Michael Welsh: Does the Minister accept that the correct term is "opting out", because if the hospitals go bankrupt, they will opt back into the national health service. I have that on authority from the Severn-Trent authority. I totally condemned the proposals for Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu hospital because the Government have not consulted the consumers. To my knowledge, no doctors agree with the proposal. If they send their patients to other infirmaries and hospitals still under the national health service, will the necessary finance be provided?
Mr. Waldegrave: There is widespread medical support for the changes. I have to judge in each case whether there is proper clinical involvement in the proposals, and I have so discovered. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) knows that, at the heart of our policy is the principle—which I believe is accepted by the hon. Member for Livingston—that the money should follow the patients.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)
4.8 pm
Mr. Speaker: We come to the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland——
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the points of order after the statement.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang):With permission, Mr. Speaker——
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know perfectly well that they must sit down. I shall take the points of order after the statement.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that I shall take the points of order at the usual time. I must ask the hon. Members to resume their seats—[Interruption.] I must order hon. Members to resume their seats.
Mr. Lang: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about public expenditure in Scotland.
Following the announcement on 8 November of the Government's public expenditure plans by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I have now decided how I propose to deploy the resources which are available for my programmes in Scotland. As usual, a table summarising my decisions is available in the Vote Office and will appear in Hansard. Full details will appear in due course in my departmental report, which will be published in February.
My right hon. Friend said in his autumn statement that the Government had been obliged to take some tough decisions in this survey in the interests of the economy. The task of allocating the resources available to me under the formula arrangements has not been an easy one. However, the total sum at my disposal in 1991–92 is just over £11 billion, whereas the latest estimate of outturn for the current year in the programmes is just over £9·7 billion and the planned provision at this time last year was £9·6 billion. After allowing for transfers, notably in respect of my new responsibilities for training and for nature conservation in Scotland, planned expenditure on my programmes will exceed this year's forecast outturn by over £1 billion, or 11 per cent.
My right hon. and learned Friend, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, has already, of course, announced a very fair settlement for Scottish local authorities. This settlement should, particularly in the light of the expected fall in inflation, remove the need for any significant real increase in community charge levels next year. I believe it was right to give priority in this survey to offsetting the effects on community charge payers of high spending by Scottish local authorities, but that has inevitably meant that the increases that I can afford for my other programmes are lower than I would have wished.
Expenditure on the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Training Agency in Scotland will be rolled forward as planned to launch Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise on 1 April 1991. Together they will have
184
available gross expenditure of £477 million. Of this, Scottish Enterprise will be able to spend £406 million, of which £226 million will be training resources transferred from the employment programme. Highlands and Islands Enterprise will have £71 million, of which just over £13 million is for training and related expenditure. This provision will maintain the high level of activity which the new bodies inherit from the SDA and HIDB, including last year's additional resources for Caithness.
I have given priority to the health programme, which next year will amount in gross terms to more than £3·3 billion. This is 11 per cent. more than original plans for the current year, and 9·3 per cent. more than forecast outturn. This increase is greater than the formula consequences from the comparable programme in England, and will enable continued progress to be made with the major reforms which are under way in the management of the service, while maintaining patient care. These additions to the programme are particularly significant given that expenditure per head on health is already over 20 per cent. above comparable expenditure in England. Overall, planned expenditure on the NHS in Scotland in 1991–92 will be 38 per cent. higher after allowing for inflation than in 1979–80.
I attach importance to the environment and I am pleased to announce a further substantial increase in resources for local authorities' water and sewerage programme. This will enable me to enhance the programme by 17 per cent. next year to £166 million and to £238 million in three years' time. Planned expenditure then will be two thirds higher than it was this year, and more than double the level for 1988–89. I am sure that this major increase will be widely welcomed by everyone who cares for the environment. Local authorities will be able to make continuing improvements in the quality of drinking water and bathing waters to meet United Kingdom and EC standards and the new £130 million sewerage improvement grant which my right hon. and learned Friend announced in June will be of considerable further assistance. My plans for the environment also provide for the establishment of NCC Scotland with effect from next April and for increases in the budgets of the Countryside Commission for Scotland and United Kingdom 2000.
In the education programme my plans provide for rising numbers of Scottish students at universities and colleges, for extra resources for school buildings and for the completion of the Scottish centre for children with motor impairments. In housing, Scottish Homes' funding will increase next year by 10 per cent. and local authorities should be able to maintain gross capital expenditure per house on their own stock at this year's levels, and increase their contributions to the partnership areas. Local authority improvement grant provision will be maintained.
In transport, we plan to maintain the excellent progress made so far on upgrading the A74 to motorway standard, and to start the final schemes to complete both the A9 Perth to Stirling and the A94 Perth to Aberdeen dualling. We will continue work on the central Scotland motorway network and on the A96 Aberdeen to Inverness route.
There has been a steady improvement in infrastructure and public services in Scotland over the past decade. It is this Government's effective management of the economy and prudent approach to public finance which have made these improvements possible, and the decisions that I have announced today will ensure that they will continue.
Following is the table:

£ million

1990–91 Estimated outturn gross

net

1990–91 Planned Provision gross

net

1991–92 Planned Provision gross

net

1992–93 Planned Provision gross

net

1993–94 Planned Provision gross

net

Central government's own expenditure (including public corporations other than nationalised industries) and local authority capital expenditure

Agriculture, fisheries and food

237

228

237

232

253

246

260

260

270

270

Industry, energy, trade and employment

349

252

348

251

601

528

610

530

610

520

Tourism

12

12

13

13

14

14

10

10

10

10

Roads and transport

387

384

387

384

378

375

390

390

400

400

Housing (see Note 5)

1,066

660

1,024

639

1,154

711

970

700

980

730

Other environmental services

369

278

334

271

415

344

430

360

460

390

Law, order and protective services

323

308

317

298

346

330

360

340

380

360

Education

451

450

440

439

543

538

580

580

600

600

Arts and libraries

35

35

35

35

41

41

50

50

60

60

Health

3,087

2,990

3,041

2,936

3,375

3,275

3,550

3,450

3,680

3,570

Social work services

39

39

38

38

51

51

50

50

60

60

Other public services

170

139

170

139

201

163

210

170

230

180

Total central government and local authority capital

6,525

5,774

6,385

5,676

7,372

6,615

7,480

6,900

7,730

7,150

Central government support to local authorities' current expenditure

4,020

4,019

4,389

4,510

4,620

Nationalised industries financing limits

−84

−119

48

50

10

Total expenditure within the Secretary of States responsibility

9,711

9,576

11,052

11,460

11,780

Notes:
1. 1990–91 and 1991–92 rounded to nearest £1 million. 1992–93 and 1993–94 rounded to nearest £10 million.
2. Figures may not add due to rounding.
3. Central government support to local authorities comprises revenue support grant, grants to local authorities for specific purposes, and income from non domestic rates.
4. The estimated outturn for 1990–91 is lower than that shown in the autumn statement as it takes account of changes to the nationalised industries' financing requirements since the autumn statement was compiled.
5. The housing gross figure for 1990–91 includes £10 million and the gross and net figures for 1991–92 include £170 million and £38 million respectively for Scottish Homes' loan repayments to the national loans fund.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion. I gather from the public prints that it came as a surprise to him, but it shows the wonderful things that can happen when someone backs a winner. I particularly welcome his pledge to dialogue and accord in Scotland. If that is realised, it will make a notable change from the past 11 rather abrasive years.
The total announced in the autumn statement which has now been divided up is clearly inadequate. The problems of the Scottish Office which have been widely advertised in the press in the past week or two make that clear.
How can the Secretary of State defend a settlement that means a cut of £200 million in real terms between 1991–92 and 1993–94? If, as the Secretary of State claims, the settlement removes the need for any significant real increase in community charge levels, why are authorities such as the Borders, Dumfries and Grampian looking to poll tax increases of about £50 in the coming year? Does he not agree that local authorities needed an 11 per cent. increase in grant to stand still, are facing substantial new
186
statutory duties in areas such as community care and face problems that arise from the changes in the Government's contribution to the cost of rebates?
I note that gross expenditure of £477 million is being made available to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand that that makes it difficult to compare this year's and next year's employment budgets. Will he confirm that the new presentation conceals grim news? Does he agree that on the SDA's traditional role the increase in expenditure for next year is up by only 3·3 per cent. which represents a substantial cut in real terms?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman worried about the fact that, in 1986–87, the Welsh Development Agency budget was 55 per cent. of the SDA budget? In 1991–92, the WDA budget will be 88 per cent. of the SDA budget, and that is for a country half the size of Scotland. Can he confirm that, in 1991–92, nearly £60 million will be slashed from training expenditure in Scotland? Is that the launch pad for the training revolution which we need and which occasionally the Government promise us under the new structure?

187
Does the Secretary of State agree that, although he has announced a cut in gross expenditure on housing of £50 million in real terms between 1991–92 and 1992–93—in cash terms, a loss of £14 million? Those are the figures after allowing for the £170 million that will be repaid in 1991–92 by Scottish Homes to the national loans fund. Is he satisfied that that will allow the housing stock to be satisfactorily maintained? His statement contains a form of words which suggests that he has nothing like the confidence that he should have on that matter:
"local authorities should be able to maintain gross capital expenditure per house on their own stock at this year's levels".
Is it correct to translate that as a significant cut, because the number of houses will fall and no allowance has been made for inflation?
The Minister will admit that no one listening to him would guess that a cut in the roads and transport budget next year of £9 million in cash means £29 million in real terms? That will make sore reading and will bring little consolation to those who are waiting for good news about roads that never comes. I accept that the statement is not that of the right hon. Gentleman but that he has inherited it from his predecessor. He is predicting trouble, difficulty and turmoil in supporting in future years services for the most vulnerable in our society. It would be helpful if he would at least give a commitment to do better next year and halt the decline in funding, which is clearly outlined in the figures, in the run-up to 1993–94.
Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box on my first appearance as Secretary of State for Scotland. After that, the hon. Gentleman fell back into the usual well-worn complaint about inadequate resources. This year there is an increase of 11 per cent. on last year's anticipated outturn. By any standard that is a substantial increase, especially when we anticipate that by the time this public expenditure period begins inflation will be falling.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a £50 increase in the community charge. Such increases are completely unnecessary. We have made a generous increase of 10·4 per cent. in local government funding. To talk about substantial increases in the community charge and to blame them on non-payment and non-collection is totally unacceptable. The evidence shows that local authorities are collecting about 90 per cent. of budgeted income, and that will bring them close to 98 per cent. of total anticipated revenue from all sources. If they cannot meet the gap from adjusting their budgets rather than turning to those who do pay to cover the default of those who do not, there is something badly wrong in local government management.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the budgets for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I refute his suggestion that the news about them is grim. There has been a substantial provision of resources to enable these bodies to plan for the development of activities in their area. The hon. Gentleman is fond of talking about the net budget for these organisations. The net budget on the forecast outturn for 1990–91 for the Scottish Development Agency is £97 million, and the net budget for 1991–92 for Scottish Enterprise is around £120 million. That is not taking into account the addition of training provision.
188
We have made substantial provision for training—some £226 million for Scottish Enterprise and £13·3 million in the case of Highlands and Islands Enterprise—at a time when the demographic trend is reducing the number of school leavers by 6·5 per cent. over the year and when long-term unemployment has been falling substantially. It has fallen faster in Scotland over the past six months than in any other region in the United Kingdom. The training provision includes substantial resources for the needs of the training courses that will be available.
As to housing, net provision will be up £34 million. In the case of Scottish Homes, grant in aid will be up by 10 per cent. the growth provision of local authorities will be maintained at the same level as last year.
The roads programme next year will be slightly less, but over the past two years there was an increase of no less than 40 per cent. The figure of 40 per cent. in the context of the roads programme may be familiar to the hon. Gentleman, because that is the proportion by which the last Labour Government cut the roads programme. We have substantially increased it, and over the next year there will be much work going on in roads and motorways all over Scotland. That is as it should be, and this settlement has the right mixture of divisions between the programmes for Scotland's needs.
Sir Hector Monro: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend and neighbour on his promotion to Secretary of State. I am glad that he has announced significantly increased expenditure on health and education. Is he able to meet the Nature Conservancy Council's target for Scotland of £18 million, which is estimated to be the minimum needed to set up its new Scottish identity? How much money does he hope to set aside within Scottish Enterprise to help in Lanarkshire, where British Steel is so shamefully closing Ravenscraig and the Clydesdale plant, where there will be significant unemployment and where we should be helping with resources?
Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome, which I appreciate, and for his support for the parts of my statement affecting the health and education programmes. There will be an increase in the health programme of 11 per cent. over our plans for last year, which I think hon. Members will welcome. There will also be a substantial increase in education, where net provision will go up by £89 million, or over 20 per cent. above our plans for 1990–91.
We have made provision to increase resources to the NCC by more than £1 million over the three-year expenditure period.
I am keen to ensure that all necessary resources are brought to bear to help in the economic regeneration of Lanarkshire. I hope that all bodies, public and private, will bring resources to bear and that they will use the capacity of their different schemes to regenerate the economy of that region.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I extend my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his elevation, which was caused by the transfer of his colleague to the role of Secretary of State for Transport. Given that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first announcement as Secretary of State for Transport was about increased investment in the M25, which is in the home counties, will the Secretary of State press on the Secretary of State for Transport the

189
need to ensure that we get a fair share of transport policy, not least the electrification of the railway line north-east to Aberdeen and the extension of the A1 motorway north of the border? Although the opening of the Inverurie bypass last Friday was a welcome move, will the right hon. Gentleman continue funding for the A96?
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the shortfall in local Government spending is partly due to the high cost of collecting the poll tax? In the extensive review of the poll tax that the right hon. Gentleman claims will take place, will he recognise that with a system of local income tax there would not have been a non-payment problem because the Inland Revenue would have ensured that the tax was paid? Will he give an assurance that, when the poll tax is abolished, it will apply to Scotland a year ahead of England and Wales? In addition—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to ask three questions.
Mr. Bruce: If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Front Bench——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not a Front-Bench spokesman, even though he may represent his party. He should have some consideration for his colleagues.
Mr. Lang: The north-east of Scotland and the north of Scotland in general have been and continue to be substantial beneficiaries of the roads programme. The Inverness to Thurso road has nine schemes outstanding, valued at £59 million. There are eight major schemes for the A96, and it has top trunk road priority. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Inverurie bypass. I can inform him that since 1979 £109 million has been spent on the Perth to Aberdeen road, and the last dualling stage of that road is about to start.
The cost of collecting the community charge is higher than the cost of collecting domestic rates because twice as many people pay the community charge. We would also expect a new system to be more expensive to collect at the outset. However, the collection costs represent only a small percentage of the total resources at the disposal of local authorities. In return for that, we have a system that is fairer than domestic rates because the burden is spread more evenly across the whole of the adult population. We will be debating these matters further, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to develop his points.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in congratulating my right hon. Friend and wish him every success in his new responsibilities. I welcome his announcement of a 17 per cent. increase in the water and sewerage budget, which should be of enormous help to the environment in Scotland. Will he press on regional councils the absolute priority of preventing the discharge of raw sewage into the sea, which is one of the worst examples of damage to the environment? There are examples of that in my constituency at Newtonhill and at Inverberrie, on the east coast. Will he please make that a major priority?
Mr. Lang: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome. I understand his concern about the discharge of raw sewage. We regard expenditure on this matter to be
190
extremely important, and that is reflected in my announcement today. My right hon. Friend might like to know that we are talking about an increase in provision not just for next year but for later years. By 1993–94, the water and sewerage budget will have more than doubled.
Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth): Will the Secretary of State accept congratulations on his appointment from a member of the class of '79? I agree with the observation that some, at least, of that class are doing well. In the context of expenditure on the health service, will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider the needs of general practice in the new town of Cumbernauld? In particular, will he carefully consider the need for a new central health clinic? The present health clinic has woefully inadequate facilities and is much overused, and the difficulties faced by doctors are very real. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman about that matter, but will he today give an assurance that he will carefully consider the need for a new central health clinic in Cumbernauld?
Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his greeting, which is warmly appreciated. I listened with interest to his points about the health concerns in his area, and I shall ensure that those matters are drawn to the attention of the health board. We are increasing the gross provision for health by 9·3 per cent., and a health budget of £3·3 billion reflects a substantial rise—no less than 38 per cent. up, in real terms, on what it was when the Government came to power. I believe that, within those substantial resources, it should be possible to meet concerns of the sort mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bill Walker: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment as Secretary of State, and I congratulate him, along with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the return to the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about which Conservative Members are delighted.
I remind my right hon. Friend that the Opposition consider that education and health will be important matters at the next general election and that our record in those areas, particularly now that spending next year on education will be increased by 20 per cent. and on health by 11 per cent., an increase of 38 per cent. over and above inflation since 1978–79, should enable us to answer all the humbug that comes from the Labour party, which was the party of cuts during 1978–79.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is right to identify those important areas of expenditure as ones to which we have given considerable attention and not a little priority this year. My hon. Friend might also like to know that we are making further provision for increased expenditure on education in the later years so that, at the end of the three-year period, expenditure will have risen by no less than 33 per cent.
Mr. John McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware of the Shelter report "Some Chance", published earlier this week, which revealed that 10,000 young Scots are homeless and sleeping rough, and which called on the Scottish Office to make the young homeless a national priority? Why did he not mention the young homeless this afternoon and, more importantly, why did he not target specific spending to deal with the problem of

191
the young homeless in Scotland? Is it not a national disgrace that, at a time of rising homelessness and a housing crisis in Scotland, he should announce a real terms cut in funding for housing in Scotland?
Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman will know, in making allocations to local authorities we take account of the anticipated needs of the homeless and it is for local authorities to decide how to spend their resources. I simply do not believe that, out of the resources that we are increasing by £34 million next year, it will not be possible to find the necessary provision to deal with that problem.
Mr. David Marshall: Is the Secretary of State aware that 1,000 Winget houses in the Carntyne area in the Provan and Shettleston constituencies in the east end of Glasgow have suffered for years from serious structural defects? The district council has no funds to do anything about that problem now or for several years to come, and today's statement, particularly in relation to housing, does nothing to alter that one bit. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) in wishing the Secretary of State well in his new position, but what advice does he have for the people trapped in defective houses?
Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. As I have said, the housing resources are being substantially increased. By the end of 1992, £1 billion will have been available to Scottish Homes since its inception. Within the available resources, it should be possible to meet problems of the kind to which he referred.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement today on housing is grossly inadequate? The vast majority of my constituents are suffering great troubles from dampness and other things which need to be taken care of. When he comes to allocate money to the regions, will he take account of the particular and special needs of Grampian region, which has a great deal to remedy and whose part-Labour council is prepared to bring forward its manifesto promises?
Mr. Lang: The needs and priorities asserted by all local authorities are taken into account and assessed in a fair and even-handed way when allocations are considered. Again, I point to our record on housing expenditure. Since we have been in office, a record £9 billion has been invested in housing in Scotland.
Mr. Thomas Graham: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. I thought that tonight we might have had some Christmas cheer but, unfortunately, it looks as if the Scrooge regime will continue. My constituency has literally hundreds of young people who are desperate for homes but cannot afford to buy them because they have no jobs. Scottish Homes is not playing its part in providing homes for young people in my area. Tonight, as on many other nights, young people are languishing in the streets, living in cardboard cities throughout Scotland. Some young people will probably die from hyporthermia because they do not have a home and somewhere to sleep. The Secretary of State's pittance will condemn such young people to a life
192
of abject misery. He ought to hang his head in shame, and should now start to solve the problem of Scotland's homeless.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that we are covering the deficit for hostel provision from housing support grant. As to the provision for housing, I mentioned a figure of £34 million, which is within an overall increase in expenditure in Scotland of 11 per cent. over and above the estimated outturn for the current year—11 per cent. at a time when we anticipate that inflation will be substantially below that and falling when the programmes come into effect. It is a very good settlement.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and in expressing the hope that the cancelling of our meeting on Friday represented a postponement rather than anything else.
I remind the Secretary of State that the only commitment made in Committee on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, given by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), about dowry funding for people leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals. Given that that principle has already been accepted in England and Wales, is it covered by the statement? If not, when may we expect a similar commitment for community care in Scotland?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. Our meeting has indeed been postponed, not cancelled, and I look forward to it. The point that the hon. Gentleman raises does not come within the substance of my statement today. As to the social work budget, I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the net provision is to increase by no less than £12 million, or 31 per cent., over last year.
Mr. Dick Douglas: I welcome the Secretary of State to his post, and his expertise in the terpsichorean art. The only problem is that he might be running out of dancing partners on his side of the House. When the Government sort out the poll tax, will the funds that the Secretary of State has cut be replaced? Does he agree that he has announced what is really a standstill financial provision, for there has been no real increase over the year? When will Scottish water be safe to drink, and when will our beaches be safe to bathe from? As to education and training——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Two questions are enough.
Mr. Douglas: Does the Secretary of State have any particular——
Mr. Speaker: Order. A debate that must end at 7 o'clock is to follow.
Mr. Douglas: It was different for the Labour Front-Bench spokesman.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a Back Bencher. He is like everyone else on the Back Benches.
Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, which I appreciate. Far from cutting local government resources, I have added £67 million to the consequentials that flow from the settlement south of the border. Some of that was at the expense of the Scottish block and of my other programmes. That represents an attempt to lift the

193
burden on community charge payers. The onus is on local authorities to plan their budgets in a more economical and frugal way, rather than increase the burden without any thought for the costs imposed on those least able o meet them. The figures I gave show also the substantial commitment that we have to water.
Mr. Adam Ingram: The statement made no mention of the growing housing problem in Scotland's new towns. Why has the Secretary of State not proceeded with the proposition from East Kilbride development corporation to build up to 2,000 new public sector houses? Is it because he has started out as he means to go on—as a mere cipher for the Treasury?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know of the excellent progress that has been made in new town housing in the past two years. He may recall that it was I, as the Minister responsible for new towns, who lifted the general moratorium when I first assumed that office. As to the current settlement, there will be enough available to enable new towns to meet half their special needs requirements in housing over the three-year period.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: A few minutes ago, the Secretary of State said that housing resources in Scotland had increased. Would he care to tell us how many local authorities are now entitled to housing support grant, what proportion of Glasgow district council now receives the grant in comparison with the position in 1979, and how much of the capital allocation given to Scottish authorities in the current year had to come from the proceeds of sales of their own properties and how much was the result of genuine permission to borrow?
Mr. Lang: The first point is not directly covered by the statement. As for the second, in our provision for housing, instead of assuming a substantial increase in receipts as has been done in previous years, with subsequent justification—we are assuming a reduction.
Mr. William McKelvey: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion? It is nice to see one's former pair getting on.
Nevertheless, I was disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's performance today. The £9 million cut in road financing coincides with a Scottish Office news release announcing that the Scottish Office is to promote private financing for the building of Scottish roads. I fear that we shall leap from a poll tax society into a toll tax society. Can the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that Strathclyde regional council will receive sufficient funds to bring back on stream the A77 upgrading and the link with the motorway?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome.
As I have explained, there has been an increase of no less than 40 per cent. in the roads programme in the past two years. We are not maintaining that trend this year, but there is still a considerable amount of work under way which still has to be digested.
The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the A77; given his constituency interest, I understand his feelings. It was not the Government's decision, but Strathclyde regional council's, to postpone plans for the
194
road for over two years. If the council manages to sort out its problems and present its proposals, we shall be able to take another look at the matter.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Have the expenditure plans taken into account the recent governmental changes? We should remember that all three contenders for the Prime Minister's job declared themselves in favour of an immediate review of the poll tax, once hailed as the flagship of the Tory party.
Does the Secretary of State agree with John Mackay, ex-Tory Member of Parliament and ex-chief executive of the Scottish Tory party, who wrote in yesterday's Glasgow Herald that the poll tax had turned out to be the rock on which the Thatcher era had perished? Will he take it from me that, unless the poll tax is abolished completely, it will also turn out to be the rock on which the Major-Lang era perishes?
Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this statement is my statement, and that I made the final decisions—although, of course, much of the work was done during the period in office of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
No direct implications for the community charge arise from the statement, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Thatcher era has not finished—[Interruption.] The Thatcher era moves on under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I am sure that, given that new, reinvigorated momentum, we shall win another period of office, which will be just as long as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
Mr. Harry Ewing: My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) should not be so sensitive about the difference between the progress made by him and that achieved by the Secretary of State, a fellow member of the class of '79. My hon. Friend has one distinct advantage: he will be back here after the next election.
As a result of the measures announced in the statement, will unemployment in Scotland go up or come down?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that we never make forecasts about unemployment. What I can say is that unemployment is now at its lowest since October 1980—a decade ago; that it has fallen for nearly four years, which constitutes the biggest single fall recorded; and that, at 2·28 million, Scotland's work force is now larger than it has ever been before. That is a record of achievement that the last Labour Government were never able to equal.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Secretary of State plan to spend the night of 16 December at his magnificent residence, Bute house in Charlotte square? If so, after he has finished looking at the lovely Adam fireplaces, would he like to go down to St. John's church in the west end and join the hundreds who will be sleeping out in cardboard boxes for the whole night, just as many do every night of the year in Scotland's capital city?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one way of ending that disgrace would be to allocate more funds to housing associations in Edinburgh, which could then build more low-cost housing? Does he accept that those housing associations are fighting a losing battle with private speculators because of escalating land prices in the city?

195
Does he not realise that, in the midst of everything else in that capital city, there is a great deal of poverty, which will never be addressed unless the Government radically change their attitude towards public housing?
Mr. Lang: I shall have to consult my diary to see what I am doing on 16 December. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about homeless people, with planned gross housing expenditure of over £2·9 billion over the next three years, housing authorities have ample scope—if they also have the will—to pay more attention to the task of tackling the plight of the homeless.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I compliment the Secretary of State on his appointment.
I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman's observations about Scotland's transport system contained no mention of the maritime transport network that is so essential to our island communities. What provision has he made for the replacement of aging Caledonian MacBrayne passenger ferries? When, for example, will the Suilven be replaced? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are still shipyards on the Clyde that need those orders -especially Fergusons of Port Glasgow?
Mr. Lang: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome.
We shall be making an announcement about shipyard provision shortly. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the Government believe that ships should be built because they are needed and will be paid for, not just for the sake of retaining employment in the shipyards. We do not believe in allowing shipyards to build vessels for which there are no immediate orders.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I register my dismay, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), at the public expenditure circumstances that are the root cause of the industrial action taken by those long-serving, hard-working, serious night nurses at St. John's hospital, Livingston—people who would not normally conceive of doing any such thing? Will the Secretary of State—and, indeed, his responsible Minister—meet Dr. Baynham and Lothian health board to try to end the circumstances of the dispute? If he does not, he had better consult the present Secretary of State for Transport and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), because, sooner or later, the action will be spread to the great Edinburgh hospitals.
Mr. Lang: Of course, no one likes industrial disputes of this kind, especially if they take place in hospitals. This is essentially a matter for the health board, but I understand that the board is anxious to make arrangements to protect the nurses' earnings for a year, and to bring shift patterns into line with those in other hospitals.

NEW MEMBERS
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:
Mrs. Katherine Adams, for Paisley, North.
Gordon McMaster, Esq, for Paisley, South.

Points of Order
4.50 pm
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before taking points of order—and of course I must take them—I remind hon. Members that we have yet to come a debate on the budget of the European Communities, which must end at 7 o'clock. If we had not had that constraint on us, I might have allowed the private notice question to run somewhat longer. But I must have regard to the business before the House.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your problem. The Government did not seek to make a statement today on the NHS trusts and you granted a private notice question to the Opposition, my hon. Friends and I thank you for doing so. My point of order is simple. Throughout the country, 55 hospitals have been stolen from the national health service and have been handed over to hospital managements so that they can make a great deal of money. The damage that will be done——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be the case, but it is a matter of argument and not a matter of order for me.
Mr. Corbyn: My point of order——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a point of order, he must raise one that I can answer.
Mr. Corbyn: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is simply to ask when we shall have a proper statement on the subject and when we shall be able to debate the whole issue, so that the opposition to this crazy move can be voiced by the elected representatives in the House?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know, because that is not a point of order either. But I hope that there will be a debate, because it is certainly a major matter.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We were delighted to see two new hon. Members introduced today, but it will not have escaped your notice that their combined electorates are lower than mine and those of many other Conservative Members. Would it be in order for you to arrange that secretarial allowances paid to hon. Members representing well populated constituencies are double those of Scottish Members?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Leader of the House. I suggest that the hon. Member's point would be an admirable one to put to the Leader of the House on Thursday.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Gentleman once.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a helpful point of order, Mr. Speaker. When there is raised in the House an issue such as that raised today, which affects the constituencies of many hon. Members—including mine, which loses two hospitals and, in due course, its community services—it might be somewhat fairer if hon. Members from the various areas affected

197
were called by you area by area. We on Merseyside seem always to suffer from the Liverpool syndrome. You always call an hon. Member from Liverpool, but there are many more of us on Merseyside than there are from Liverpool.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, and perhaps he will come and have a quiet word with me one day, when he might care to tell me, for example, who today he thinks I might have cut out so that he might have been called instead.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are obviously well aware of the importance of today's private notice question and of the importance of the House as a means by which I, as an hon. Member, can defend my constituents who are genuinely uncertain about whether they will have a national health service hospital to which they can refer their medical needs. I appreciate that you are not in a position to discuss requests from Ministers, but when a matter is sufficiently important that it should be dealt with by way of a statement—which would give you the opportunity to allow questions on the issue to continue for longer—is it possible for you to take that fact into account in the amount of time that you allocate to private notice questions?
Mr. Speaker: That is precisely what I did. A private notice question is normally an extension of Question Time, as the House knows. I would not normally allow such a question to continue for more than 15 to 20 minutes. Today, it continued for nearly 50 minutes, so I did take into account the very point that the hon. Member raises.
Mr. Robert Litherland: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a strong feeling that, unwittingly, you may have made a geographical error——
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I am human and I am sure that I make many errors. I am very sorry if the hon. Member was not called.
Mr. Litherland: I raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker, not simply on my behalf but because no hon. Members representing north-west constituencies were called, yet three major hospitals in Manchester, including those affecting the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) are to go. Neither my hon. Friend nor I was called, although we wanted to make protestations about there not having been any consultations on the subject. It is clear that a short statement did not do the subject justice.
Mr. Speaker: That is as may be.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can be of assistance. If one examines the list of hospital trusts, one notices that no fewer than 13 of them are in London. It might assist you, Mr. Speaker, if you were cogniscant of the fact that I am the chair of the London group and that my colleagues are happy for me to speak on behalf of London, should I be called.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether all the hon. Member's colleagues would absolutely agree about that. They have never seemed to agree in the past. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is now a Front-Bench spokesman. It is difficult being a Front-Bench spokesman and the chair of the London group as well.
Mr. Banks: Not really, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman wears two hats.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I apologise for raising another point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I do not apologise for raising it, albeit in the absence of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who raised a point of order and then left. I should be grateful if you would say that you seriously deprecate hon. Members in any part of the House referring to new hon. Members in the disparaging terms that the hon. Member for Stockton, South used. For such comments to be made about two new colleagues who have just taken their seats is an undesirable practice, which should be deprecated.
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said was not out of order. The House itself has a way of dealing with matters of that kind.
Mr. Keith Bradley: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), Mr. Speaker. May I inform you that the only hospitals in the whole of the north-west region that are opting out are in Manchester—in central Manchester and, in my constituency, the Christie hospital? May I suggest that in any future debate on this issue you recognise hon. Members who were not called this afternoon, and in particular that you recognise the essential nature of Christie hospital, not only as a local hospital but as a centre of national excellence for cancer care? I hope that you will bear that in mind in any future debate on opting out.
Mr. Speaker: I undertake to do that. I must remind the House that it is extremely difficult for the Chair, because I received the answer to the private notice question at the same time as the Minister rose to his feet to give it. It contained a long list of hospitals. It is an impossible task to expect the Chair to look down such a list and also to look out for hon. Members. I do my best, but I am sorry that I was not able to call the hon. Member and some of his hon. Friends.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the question of calling hon. Members when statements are made? I have no complaint, because I do reasonably well——
Mr. Corbyn: Very well.
Dr. Godman: I accept my hon. Friend's correction; I do very well. I thought that there was a rule to the effect that Front Benchers who hop on to the Back Benches to ask questions are kept to the end of the queue, where they should be, and that genuine Back Benchers are called first.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member of the Opposition Front Bench some time ago. I think that the time an hon. Member is called does not really matter, so long as he or she is able to ask his or her question.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that is concerning me. Numerous Opposition Members have stood up in prime television time and said that the hospitals on the list, one of which is on the fringes of my

199
constituency, are leaving the NHS. They know that that is not true. It causes the public who are watching much anxiety.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. What is the point of order? I called the hon. Gentleman, did I not?
Mr. Hind: No, you did not. The public and the House are being misled about something that is blatantly not true. Therefore——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the moment to pursue that point. These are matters of major argument and debate. The House should have a debate at some stage, I hope fairly soon. The Leader of the House will have heard what has been said, and I hope that we may have good news about it on Thursday.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Not again.
Mr. Corbyn: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: That is very selfish of the hon. Gentleman. He has been called once on a point of order. He must have consideration for others who wish to participate in the debate on the European Communities budget. Is it a point of order? The last one was not.
Mr. Corbyn: Yes. I want to clarify what you said in your answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about Front-Bench spokesmen who seek to raise points on a statement or a private notice question. Do they get priority over Back Benchers or not?
Mr. Speaker: I take into consideration many things, such as the range of Back Benchers' opportunities. The hon. Gentleman is not in any sense a deprived citizen.
Mr. Corbyn: I am not on the Front Bench.
Mr. Speaker: No, but the hon. Gentleman is regularly called, not once a day but often several times a day. He must have consideration for Front-Bench colleagues, who do not always get as many opportunities as he gets.

European Communities (Budget)
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).
5.1 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. COM(90) 121, relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991, 8182/90, relating to the Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991, and 9865/90 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 30th November 1990, relating to the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the draft Budget.
I know that the House has been waiting with bated breath for the debate to begin. This is my first opportunity to address the House on this important issue. It is an annual event that is of considerable importance for the House.
This year's budget procedure has been preceded and accompanied by developments of great moment in the world. We have seen historic change in eastern Europe, with political and economic reforms that the Community has rightly been quick to support. Germany has united—a welcome development that enlarges our Community. The United Nations sanctions against Iraq have had a disproportionate effect on three countries in particular—Turkey, Jordan and Egypt. The European Community has, properly, decided to provide special assistance to them. All those developments require changes to the Community's financial perspective.
In the past two years, European Community spending has generally been well contained. The figures for commitments in both the 1989 and 1990 budgets have been consistently below the ceilings in the financial perspective, at 2 becu and 4·5 becu respectively. The United Kingdom's net contribution was more than £2 billion in both those years. It would have been substantially higher but for the abatement provided by the Fontainebleau agreement.
The general level of spending under the European Community budget is likely to rise quite strongly in 1991, partly because of the exceptional factors to which I referred at the outset. There is, in addition, pressure on the agriculture budget, reflecting falling world prices—especially for grain—depressed market conditions for livestock and a range of other factors, including the loss of export markets because of the Gulf crisis.
The financial guideline for agriculture was largely a product of Britain's determination to prevent a recurrence of the runaway growth in spending that brought the Community to the edge of bankruptcy in 1987. The guideline sets a legally binding limit on agriculture support spending. The annual growth of the limit is confined to 74 per cent. of the rate of growth of Community gross national product taken from the 1988 base. That guideline is buttressed by automatic stabilisers for most commodities, which trigger price cuts when production exceeds maximum quantitites set by the Council.
Until this year, the system seemed to be achieving its objective of restraining expenditure. Cumulative expenditure in 1988, 1989 and 1990 was 11 becu below the guideline, but recent developments in the trend of agricultural spending suggest that next year the guideline may be under greater pressure. I fully understand the

201 z
concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), as expressed in the amendment that he has tabled, about that upward pressure. It will remain essential to resist it.
The House will recall that the inter-institutional agreement is a political agreement under which the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission have bound themselves to respect ceilings for each of the six main categories of Community spending for the five years between 1988 and 1992. Those ceilings are set out in the financial perspective. They need to be revised to accommodate expenditure which could not reasonably have been foreseen when the financial perspective was agreed.
The agreement distinguishes, within non-compulsory expenditure, between privileged and non-privileged spending. Privileged spending includes the structural funds, the research and development framework programme and the integrated Mediterranean programmes. This category will double in real terms in that five-year period, but for the non-privileged element, the Council has agreed to respect the maximum rate of increase calculated by the Commission within the framework of article 203 of the treaty. The calculated maximum rate for the 1991 budget is 7·2 per cent.
In June 1984, the European Council in Fontainebleau agreed a permanent mechanism to abate the United Kingdom's grossly disproportionate net contribution to the budget. By the end of next year, cumulative abatement under the mechanism will have totalled almost £10 billion, in addition to the £3·2 billion-worth of refunds extracted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) before the Fontainebleau mechanism took effect. On that score alone, Britain is £13 billion better off today than it would have been under the sloppy arrangements that were so skilfully negotiated by the last Labour Government. Those arrangements amounted to a scandalous betrayal of British interests.
In June, the financial perspective was revised to provide for assistance to eastern Europe and to Mediterranean, Asian and latin American countries. A small amount for structural funds and administration was also included. The effect was an increase in the financial perspective by 200 mecu for 1990, 1·2 mecu for 1991 and nearly 1·5 mecu for 1992.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister have the sterling equivalents of those ecu figures, which might assist those who are trying to follow the debate?
Mr. Maude: No, I have not, but I can lend the hon. Gentleman a pocket calculator, which will enable him to do the sums with great rapidity.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: That is silly.
Mr. Banks: It was a genuine question.
Mr. Maude: I accept that it was a genuine question. I do not have the figures in exact equivalents, but they can easily be provided. If the House prefers to have them in that form, they can be provided. The difficulty arises because the accounts for the European Community are, properly, calculated in ecu. It is not difficult for sterling equivalents to be provided.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Are not we being a little panicky? Figures for international transactions are frequently given in dollars, and usually there are no protests from hon. Members. Taking the whole picture into account, does my hon. Friend agree that budget control is eminently satisfactory, not least due to pressure from the United Kingdom Government in recent years, compared with the previous position that he mentioned? That particularly applies to agriculture, which needs careful monitoring and depends much on the negotiations on the export refunds.
Does my hon. Friend further agree that the eastern European expenditure is being dealt with satisfactorily, that most German reunification expenditure is dealt with by German national expenditure and that the outlook remains one of further control and of remaining under the financial perspective?
Mr. Maude: It is right to say that the arrangements negotiated in 1988 have, until now, exercised a firm discipline on Community spending. It will remain of the utmost importance to continue that discipline. The present discussions on next year's budget illustrate how important it is to maintain that discipline. Although, for a number of reasons, agricultural spending has been well below the ceiling in the financial perspective, there is upward pressure for the future, and it will be very important to resist that.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: How?
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend will be aware that discussions on the general agreement on tariffs and trade are going on at present. They should have at least the effect of restraining further increases. If, as I hope, a good agreement is reached, there may be a prospect of some reductions, which would be as welcome to me as to my hon. Friend.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that the common agricultural policy budget is a massive aberration at the heart of Community finances? As we speak, the CAP threatens to undermine the general agreement on tariffs and trade and to impoverish not only the people of Europe, but those who wish to sell cheap agricultural products to this country. It is utterly foolish for us to vote for increases in aid from the European budgetary programme to the nations that are not allowed to trade with us in agricultural products. Does my hon. Friend further agree that his negotiations on this question on our behalf are really about whether the tradition of Adam Smith or the tradition of Colbert and of Richelieu will dominate European debates in future?
Mr. Maude: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is certainly right that we need to be careful to ensure that policies on agriculture enable developing countries—for these purposes, I include the reforming countries of eastern and of central Europe—to sell to us the goods that they are capable of producing. It is absurd for us to provide funds for such countries to firm up their economic reforms and, at the same time, to deny them markets where those products can properly compete.
For some time, I have argued that the GATT negotiations this year are, by quite a margin, the most important set of international discussions. Not only the future prosperity of the world but its future security depends on those discussions. I hope that those who are

203
conducting the negotiations in Brussels at present will have in mind the terrible price that could be paid if a satisfactory outcome is not reached. There is a huge prize to be won if the discussions are successful, and a terrible cost if they fail.
Mr. Dykes: I am sure that all of us agree unequivocally with my hon. Friend's view, and we all believe that the Community negotiators have a special responsibility in that context. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat ironic that the United States negotiators usually fail to remind us that the bulk of the internal support system in the United States—deficiency payments, which we used to have, but no longer have—amounts to about 82 per cent. of the total United States dollar support for American farmers.
Mr. Maude: It is certainly the case that none of the protagonists in the discussion is quite as pure as he makes himself out to be. All the protagonists have a negotiating position and, at present, those positions are incompatible. A negotiating position is, of course, one on which one can negotiate. If the negotiators fail to reach a satisfactory outcome, they will have a heavy burden of guilt to carry.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the Minister believe that the Government should now be applying themselves to getting rid of the green pound? Would not that be a considerable help in this matter?
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman takes me beyond the scope of this debate. The green pound needs to be considered in the light of our entry into the exchange rate mechanism and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that matter.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend can clarify a point about the GATT talks. Do my hon. Friend and the Government consider that the alleged 30 per cent. reduction in farm support is really a reduction? The Commission's proposals make it abundantly clear that farmers will be compensated fully for any reduction in subsidy, and that there is no question of freedom of trade being permitted. It would be helpful for us to know whether the Government consider that the alleged 30 per cent. reduction in agricultural support will be a real reduction, as the words in the proposal seem to show that there will be no reduction, but simply a reduction in subsidy, which will be compensated for by other subsidies.
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is not a question of a clean and straightforward reduction, as has been suggested. Equally, he will be aware that a substantial part of the 30 per cent. has already been harvested—if that is the right word in the circumstances—reflecting the changes in the common agricultural policy since 1986.
I can now provide for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) the sterling equivalents for the figures that I gave earlier on the first revision to the financial perspectives in respect of eastern Europe. The figure for 1990 was £140 million, for 1991 it is £950 million, and for 1992 it is £1,035 million, at a conversion rate of £1 to 1·435 ecu, which is the central exchange rate mechanism rate.
In September 1990, the Commission proposed a further revision to take account of assistance to the front-line
204
states in the Gulf conflict: Egypt, Jordan and Turkey. It was proposed to raise the ceiling for category 4 and for the total ceiling of the financial perspective by 630 million ecu.
In October, a further revision was proposed to take account of the effect on the budget of the unification of Germany. The total ceiling for that purpose was to be raised by 1 billion ecu in 1991 and by just over I billion ecu in 1992. In return, the Council sought savings within current spending to offset those increases in part. In addition, a fourth revision has recently been proposed by the Commission to take account of agricultural rebates to Spain and to Portugal.
I want now to outline this year's budget procedure so far. The Commission presented the preliminary draft budget in July. For 1991, the preliminary draft budget was about 13 per cent. bigger than the adopted budget for 1990. I know that that will rightly concern the House. None the less, that budget was almost 4 billion ecu below the overall ceiling in the financial perspective. Total provision was equivalent to about 1 per cent. of Community gross national product, compared with the 1·19 per cent. ceiling allowed under the own resources decision of June 1988.
Two underlying trends in Community expenditure emerge from the preliminary draft budget. First, it provided for an increase of more than 13 per cent. in expenditure on agricultural market support. That reflected the expected growth in compulsory expenditure on agriculture which resulted from falling world prices rather than from any slackening of control.
Secondly, it provided for an increase of about 20 per cent. in spending on structural operations and on research and development. Those areas now account for almost 30 per cent. of the total budget. The budget also included 65 million ecu for measures to combat fraud, which was further evidence of the Community's desire to root out fraud, although much more remains to be done.
On 27 July, the Council adopted a draft budget about 830 million ecu below that proposed by the Commission and more than 4·7 billion ecu below the overall ceiling in the financial perspective.
In the light of developments in eastern Europe, the Council decided that, exceptionally in 1991, it would not be appropriate to apply the maximum rate procedure to non-privileged, non-compulsory expenditure. However, the Council agreed to cut the Commission's proposed level of non-privileged expenditure by more than it had in previous years and endorsed a robust declaration making it clear that the procedure adopted in relation to this year's budget was an inevitable consequence of developments in eastern Europe and implied no weakening of budgetary discipline.
At the same meeting, the Commission said that it would present proposals for a revision of the financial perspective in the light of German unification. There was strong support from a number of member states—notably from Germany and France—for our view that the revision should cater for unification and for nothing else.
Finally, the Council decided to take the Parliament to court over the 1990 second supplementary budget. The Parliament excluded some 780 million ecu from the amount of the 1989 budget surplus to be taken into the 1990 budget on the basis that inclusion would reduce member states' VAT payments below 1·4 per cent. and that the Parliament had powers under the treaty in respect of revenue. The Council could not and did not accept that,

205
because its immediate practical consequence would have been to postpone bringing to account a substantial part of the 1989 budget surplus, with a consequent delay in member states receiving the benefit of reduced contributions. That would contradict the requirement of the financial regulation that surpluses should be brought to account at the earliest opportunity.
For that reason, and for the more fundamental reason that the Council alone has competence over revenue, the Council agreed to initiate a court action to amend the Parliament's adoption of the second supplementary budget.
The Parliament presented its amendments to the draft budget on 25 October and voted for modifications adding over 1·9 billion ecu in commitments and almost 1·6 billion ecu in payments. In its amendments, the Parliament anticipated the proposed revisions to the financial perspective and thus threatened to breach the existing ceiling. As, in effect the Parliament has the last word on matters of non-compulsory expenditure, its amendments amounted to a challenge to the Council to approve revisions along the lines that it wanted. Otherwise, the financial perspective would be breached, and the inter-institutional agreement would be thrown into question.
Two other problems emerged. The Council debated whether to reject two of the European Parliament's amendments to the structural funds category—known as category 2. These concerned a new environmental fund—LIFE—and a fund called "PERIFRA", intended to alleviate the effects of the Gulf crisis on poorer and outlying regions.
The second problem stemmed from the Parliament's proposals on research. The Parliament wanted two things—first, to reallocate resources within existing multi-annual framework programmes and, secondly, a substantial increase in spending outside those programmes.
The amendments caused a number of difficulties. In particular, the reallocation of resources along the lines proposed could not be reconciled with the framework programmes agreed by the Council in accordance with the treaty and with the inter-institutional agreement, and risked serious damage to the concept of multi-annual planning that the Community has developed to lend certainty to the funding of long-term projects.
Following preparatory work in the Budget Committee and the Committee of Permanent Representatives, the Budget Council undertook its second reading of the 1991 budget. Initial discussion on 15 November was adjourned until 19 November to take account of related Economic and Finance Council discussions of the outstanding revisions to the financial perspective on that day. As expected, the consideration of revisions to the financial perspective dominated decisions on the 1991 draft budget.
In response to the presidency's report on its continuing discussions of the revisions with the Parliament, the Council insisted on a tough line, demanding off-setting savings from within existing headroom in the financial perspective. Moreover, as part of that process, the Council pressed for a satisfactory compromise on the Parliament's amendments to the 1991 budget—in particular, on research. The presidency undertook to seek an acceptable compromise.
In the meantime, the Budget Council duly adopted its second reading position—in particular, it confirmed the rejection of the European Parliament's amendments on
206
research and rejected the LIFE and PERIFRA funds. Furthermore, the Council insisted that agreement to a limited number of new Commission posts should be conditional on implementation of the Court of Auditors' report on improved staff management. The amendments that were accepted amounted to 200 million ecu in commitments and 154 million ecu in payments.
The upshot was a revised draft budget in which commitments—at around 54·9 billion—are about 4·5 billion ecu below the overall ceiling in the financial perspective and in which member states' contributions are equivalent to 1 per cent. of Community GNP, compared with the annual sub-ceiling for own resources of 1·19 per cent.
Following further discussion at ECOFIN yesterday, I think that we may be close to an agreement on revisions to the financial perspective. There would be significant offsetting savings from within the existing headroom, the transfer of the Parliament's amendments on LIFE and PERIFRA funds out of the structural funds category of the budget, and modifications to the Parliament's amendments on research to bring them into line with existing framework programmes. The Parliament will undertake its second reading later in December, with a view to adopting the final 1991 budget before the end of the year.
The budget procedure is always a fairly tortuous affair, and this year has been no exception. We have had to be flexible in responding to major developments in eastern Europe, Germany and the Gulf. Equally, as a substantial net contributor, we have had to be firm in insisting that strict budget discipline is preserved. We shall continue to do so.
At the intergovernmental conference starting next week on institutional reform, we shall press hard for changes to the treaty which will intesify the war against fraud, deepen scrutiny of spending and require ever better value for the money supplied by tax payers and spent by the Community.
5.26 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: I am glad to see the Financial Secretary still firmly in place—apparently the only fixed point in a whirling Treasury team.
First, I must make my usual complaint about the quality of the information presented to hon. Members on complex issues concerning the European Community budget. The Treasury's explanatory memoranda do not actually explain very much. The overall figures are set out rather better than they were a year ago, but the notes do not tell us much about the detailed discussions and negotiations that have taken place or about what has happened on the detailed items of each programme in the budget. It is difficult, to say the least, to find one's way from one document to another, and the format used by the Treasury does not help. I hope that the Government will continue to examine ways in which the presentation of information to the House can be improved. The Government must be accountable for what they are up to in the Council of Ministers and the information is crucial if the House is to do the job of scrutiny that it is supposed to perform.
We still do not have before us the Council's response to the European Parliament's budget. We do not have the

207
Council's detailed decisions about the various items in the European Parliament's amendments and, given that the Council's response is so crucial to the European Community's budgetary process, it is rather difficult for us to take an accurate snapshot of the present state of the discussions on and the development of the EC budget. I shall return to that point in a moment, because I have a number of specific items to raise with the Government.
When we reach this stage in the discussions next year, I trust that the Treasury—by then, I hope, under the control of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—will be able to present us with an account of exactly what has happened in the Council's response to the Parliament. It would be useful for us to know that.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Even if we had all the information that we should, what power would the House have to make any changes?
Mr. Smith: The House certainly has the power that it should have, which is to scrutinise what the Government are up to, because the Government and Ministers are our representatives in the Council. We need to know what decisions the Council is taking, when it takes them and what measures it is proposing so that we can hold Ministers to account for what they are up to.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Surely all we need to know is that three quarters of the budget goes on agricultural subsidy, which costs every average family in this country £1,000 a year, or £20 a week. Those are the most salient points. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that figure needs to be reduced? What would he do if he were to take over the Treasury team with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?
Mr. Smith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has woken up to join in our debate. There is much of importance in the documents, not just the item on agriculture. I shall refer to the item on agriculture in a moment. I happen to believe that it takes too great a share of the European Community budget and that we would like to see that share reducing over time. I said that last year, and I will continue to say it. There is much else that we need to scrutinise as well.
One small but important technical point that I need to raise with the Government was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) when he raised the obvious layman's question about what the figures are in pounds rather than in ecus. The Government, in all the figures that they have put before us, have used the conversion rate of the pound to the ecu of 1·435, which assumes that the pound is at its central rate within the exchange rate mechanism.
We all know, however, that the pound is currently substantially below its central rate within the exchange rate mechanism, which means that the calculation that the Government are currently using for the exchange rate between the pound and the ecu is incorrect. The pound is at a lower value than it was when the documents were drawn up. Obviously, one question that we must ask the Government is how much extra, in terms of our own
208
contribution to the budget, the lower standing of the pound as against the ecu will cost us as a result of those exchange rate fluctuations.
Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I do not want to disturb his flow too much, but with regard to his point about conversion, he mentioned the ERM central rate of £1 to 1·435 ecu, which is in volume 7, document 8182/90. When I looked at the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which accompanies the documents, I noticed that the conversion rate in that report is £1 to 1·387557 ecu. To which figure are we supposed to pay more attention?
Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend points exactly to the problem that I identified. The figure in that Select Committee report was used some months ago, before our entry into the exchange rate mechanism. I presume that the Select Committee took the actual rate of conversion at the time it drew up its report. The Government are now taking a theoretical rate of conversion in terms of our central rate within the exchange rate mechanism rather than the actual rate of conversion as of today.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Would not the simple answer be to talk of the good old British pound so that we all would know where we are? It is nonsense and gobbledegook to talk about ecus in the British House of Commons.
Mr. Smith: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not usually have much sympathy with what he says, but he has a valid point. In dealing with such matters, it would be useful if we could perhaps refer to ecus and pounds so that everyone can know exactly where we stand and what we are talking about.
Mr. Maude: It comes a little ill from the hon. Gentleman to sympathise with the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) for the good old British pound. As I understand Labour Members' recent pronouncements about their proposals for economic and monetary union, they would like to get rid of the pound altogether.
Mr. Smith: All the issues about economic and monetary union and the possibility of a single currency stand in the background of many of our discussions in the House. I shall refer to that matter in a moment or two.
In the meantime, the detail of the draft budget is important. One feature of the draft budget is certainly welcome, and that is that the agricultural support section 1 vote is well within the financial perspective by a considerable margin. It still, however, takes the lion's share of the Community budget. Over time, as I have mentioned, we would wish to see that pattern change. Much will depend on precisely what happens in the current round of general agreement on tariffs on trade discussions. None the less, the balance within the European Community budget between support for agriculture, which takes such an overwhelming proportion, and all the other social, regional and structural programmes in the European Community must change over time. We shall support that position.
Any increase in the agricultural support figures required to provide support for the new German Lander which have joined Germany from the former East Germany must come within the existing financial

209
perspective ceiling. It is possible to accommodate that within the existing ceiling. The financial perspective must not be amended to take account of that change.
We should also welcome within the draft budget the agreement that seems to have been reached between the Council and the Parliament to establish an environment fund. Even if it is at a very token level at this stage, it is none the less a small step in the right direction and, I hope, something that can be built on in future.
Elsewhere in the draft budget, however, the news is not so good, and it would be useful to know what part our Government have played in drawing up the response from the Council of Ministers to many of the proposals that have been made by the European Parliament. As I understand it—we do not have the papers in front of us, so I have been able to find this out only by direct contact with colleagues in the European Parliament—the European Parliament has made a range of proposals for spending, which is extremely valuable spending from our point of view, and it seems that the Council of Ministers has rejected them or has demanded cuts. It would be useful to know what role our Government and our representatives in the Council of Ministers have played in some of those decisions.
Let us consider, for example, item 3531 relating to controls, studies and analyses in connection with the fight against fraud, something about which the Government said that they were extremely concerned when we debated the Court of Auditors report some months ago. The Council is proposing a cut of 631,000 ecu in that budget. Item A354, on computerised customs networks for fraud prevention, which is a similarly important issue, is faced with a cut of 200,000 ecu. A cut of 13 million ecu in commitments and 10 million ecu in payments is being proposed in the financial support for transport infrastructure projects within the Community.
In item B3105, on the Lingua project, which is an extremely important educational programme for the children in our schools, the Council is proposing a cut of 2 million ecu. In item B34000, on industrial relations, the Council is proposing a cut of 1·1 million ecu. On measures to combat poverty, item B34103, the Council is proposing cuts of 2 million ecu.
Following some of the Government's statements, we had assumed that environmental concerns would be one of their priorities, but a cut of 2·68 million ecu is to be made in the budget of item B43043, on action to combat pollution caused by waste products. On item B5105, dealing with product safety measures, a cut of 500,000 ecu is being made. In item B75010, which deals with support for the Third world and the Community's contribution to the projects of non-governmental organisations, a cut of 13 million ecu is being proposed in commitments and of 7 million ecu in payments.
Those are just some of the decisions which, as far as I can establish, have been taken by the Council in relation to the proposals of the European Parliament. In some cases, they take the' position back to worse than it was when the first preliminary draft budget was proposed. Surely we should know what our Government have been up to when participating in those decisions?
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As the United Kingdom is one of the largest net payers into the Community, surely we should be pleased that there have been certain economies. Although
210
they have been described as cuts, they are probably economies because, once the legislation is under way with seedcorn money to launch the projects, it does not necessarily follow that spending on those areas should always increase. We have probably been successful in sonic of those areas and will not need as much money for them in the following year. To describe the proposals as cuts is probably incorrect. They are reductions, not cuts.
Mr. Smith: I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman, who appears to think that we currently have perfect safeguards against fraud in the Community, that our transport infrastructure is absolutely up to scratch and needs no support, that we have solved every problem relating to product safety across the Community, and that charities and voluntary organisations working in the Third world need very little support. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman reaches those conclusions. My colleagues arid I do not share those views.
Mr. Maude: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could therefore tell us which of those programmes he knows anything about, other than their titles which he has read out; which ones he would agree to; what the total cost of those increases would be; and the resulting addition to our net contribution to the budget.
Mr. Smith: I am happy to tell the Minister that I would not necessarily agree to a considerable number of the items in the budget of the European Parliament. We certainly share the aim of wishing to go through the budget carefully, to look at it item by item and programme by programme, to see where funds can usefully be directed and where they cannot. Any sensible Government would need to undertake that process. However, there are a number of extremely useful projects which need to be undertaken and I have drawn attention to some of them. I have taken the trouble to go into them in some detail simply to raise those areas of concern.
There are two other areas of concern——
Mr. Geraint Howells rose——
Mr. Smith: I shall give way for the last time, because I have been very generous in giving way.
Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have listened with interest to what he has been saying. If I understood him correctly, he said earlier that he was very much in favour of cutting farm subsidies. What type of policy will he and his party pursue to ensure that family farms in Britain will survive without any support of any kind?
Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misheard—perhaps deliberately. I did not at any stage say that we wished to cut farm subsidies. I said that we wished to redress the balance within the European Community budget and to see a reducing proportion of that budget being devoted to agricultural support, and an increasing proportion being used for support for the regions and for social policy. That has been the clear position of my party for many a long year, and it is one to which we still subscribe.
We need to raise two other areas of concern with the Government. I should like to know where the funds are coming from for the aid that has been promised to the front-line Gulf states, and for Germany's unification costs.

211
I understand that there is a debate under way at the moment between the Council and the Parliament about whether those items can be contained within the existing financial perspective. I understand that the European Parliament is insisting that a revision to the financial perspective may well be required. The Council seems to think otherwise.
I believe that earlier today—it may have been yesterday—ambassadors met under the Italian presidency to discuss whether a proposed revision to the financial perspectives for those two items would be required. I also understand that the United Kingdom representative at the meeting voted against any revision. If that is the case and my information is correct, we need to ask the Government where they believe that the funds for those two commitments will come from because, over time, they may be quite expensive. It would be useful to know the reasoning behind the Government's decision to instruct their representative—as they must have done—to cast our vote in that way at that ambassador-level meeting.
My next point is, in some ways, the most important point about the budget. We must recognise the crucial importance of regional policy in the European Community. In that respect, item 2 of the budget headings—dealing with the structural funds—will take on an ever-increasing importance. We are delighted to see an increased commitment in the 1991 European budget for the structural funds used to enhance development in the less wealthy regions of the Community. It is part of a four-year process of doubling the structure funds, which we welcome. However, we would want to go further.
As the European economy becomes increasingly co-ordinated, regional policy will be ever more important. That will be especially true if we move towards economic and monetary union with a single currency and a common monetary policy. In such circumstances, an absolutely essential requirement would be a strong regional policy to help to redress imbalances between different parts of Europe. That view is shared by the overwhelming majority of our European partners. We do not want a Europe divided between rich and poor regions or rich and poor citizens, but that is the clear danger if we leave everything to the operation of the market. Regional policy and an enhancement of the structural funds are crucial if we are to achieve genuine economic and social cohesion across the Community.
Meanwhile, the British Government, even in their new clothes, remain virtually the only people who do not share that view. They denigrate a regional policy approach at every opportunity. They believe that the market will do it all, but it will not. The Labour party sets a key priority on the development of a European regional policy and wishes to discuss that issue constructively with its European colleagues at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Christopher Gill rose——
Mr. Smith: I shall not give way, because I am drawing my remarks to a close.
If we are to consider what the Government have actually said about regional policy, it is worth going back to an historic document dated November 1989—just 12 months ago—entitled: "An Evolutionary Approach to Economic and Monetary Union." The document is
212
pre-history and even pre-hard ecu. It was the "12 competing currencies—the Nigel Lawson scheme", brought forward by the Government with a fanfare of trumpets. Its relatively brief discourse makes some interesting points, the most important and perhaps the most tragic of which relates to regional policy. It notes the doubling of structural funds by 1992, intended to help reduce regional disparity, but continues, in a classic sentence:
"But regional disparities will be alleviated primarily through the operation of the market."
That is the Government's belief.
In some respects I am pleased to see the Financial Secretary nodding his head, because it makes it crystal clear that the Government have not changed their spots one iota as a result of recent changes. They believe that economic inequalities will be realistically redressed only through market operation—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary seems to have changed his mind—I give way to him.
Mr. Maude: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what he read out and the word that he missed in his earlier caricature—the word "primarily."
Mr. Smith: I am happy to reinstate the word "primarily", because it means that the Government simply see the market operation as the main focus of their approach. It is quite clear that they believe that regional disparities will be redressed primarily through the operation of the market. We believe that those disparities will be redressed primarily by having a strong, sensible, secure regional policy, which we want to put in place. The budget goes some way towards achieving that end, and most of our European partners agree with us, rather than the Government. I look forward to the day when a Labour Government will see that regional policy fully and properly in place.
5.55 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
"notes with concern the further substantial increases proposed in agricultural spending under the headings EAGGF Guarantee, EAGGF Guidance and Agriculture, and expresses astonishment at the proposals by the European Parliament that these figures should be further increased.".
The amendment expresses my hon. Friends' deep concern at the agricultural spending element in the European Community budget. It was selected for debate by Mr. Speaker at a timely moment. In an ordinary year, the issue of how many ecus the EC budget spends on agricultural subsidies might seem to many to be an archane and academic subject, but this year is different. As the House knows, the Uruguay round of negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade is stalling on the issue, which is so contentious that last night there was rioting in the streets of Brussels. That trouble may yet be the harbinger of worse worries still to come.
We are discussing the topic against not just a background of a five-minutes-to-midnight crisis in world trade talks, but a looming catastrophe in world trade. The word "catastrophe" is justified because it would be a catastrophe if, as expected, the GATT era, which has done so much for the prosperity of the world, flounders and sinks on the rock of EC agricultural subsidies and the world is thrown back into the dark ages of protectionism and trade wars. Those conditions of protectionism created

213
the slump in world trade of the 1930s, symbolised here in Britain by the Jarrow marches. The spectre of falling living standards and, in some parts of the world, poverty and starvation, will loom again if the EC and other Governments fail to tackle the problem of billowing agricultural subsidies.
To call the EC level of agricultural spending on subsidies "billowing" is far too polite. The common agricultural policy has blown Europe off course into a fool's paradise of extravagant and excessive agricultural spending. The average European family of four now spends £17 a week on subsidising agriculture. Some two thirds of the European Community's £40 billion budget now goes to subsidise farmers, who do not seem particularly content with the results of the bountiful munificence conferred on them.
No end to the problem is in sight. The United States and the rest of the world, as symbolised by the Cairns group in the GATT talks are right to be critical of our failure to tackle agricultural subsidies in a meaningful way. My hon. Friend the Minister said, as he was bound to do, that this year at least the agricultural guideline spending figures had not been breached by the Community. But in 1991, as he was fair enough to say, those guidelines are likely to be breached and the story of overspending is likely to be with us again.
The CAP reforms of the 1980s were not really reforms, but merely cosmetic improvements. After seven years of ineffective tinkering with the CAP we still have a far too high price support level, far too much interference in the domestic market and too much subsidised dumping of the resulting surplus on the international export market. The cost of that folly to the British or the European consumer is painfully expensive. I wonder how many families in this country know that their pocket books are being hit to the tune of £17 a week for agricultural spending.
Subsidies distort and artificially inflate the price of land, encourage intensive farming methods which damage the land and sometimes involve mistreatment of animals. Under the extraordinarily lax EC system, the subsidies often end up in the pockets of fiddlers, fraudsters and cheats, rather than genuine farmers. The small 3 per cent. of the European population who work in farming are not noticeably prosperous. It is a long time since any of us with farming constituents talked to a happy farmer, and the same is true on the continent. Now these agricultural subsidies have brought us to the edge of the greatest crisis in world trade since the 1930s. So something is going seriously wrong, and one wonders whether anyone in the European Commission is listening seriously to this litany of justified complaints.
The answer seems to be that the Commission is not listening seriously enough. It displays a negative attitude which speaks volumes for the political clout of French and German farmers. I hope that, at least in Germany, those attitudes will change following the German elections, but I have my doubts.
America, the Third world and all the nations of the world are now lined up against the European Commission and the European Community. Their demand—it is a negotiating position, of course—is that the EC should cut farm subsidies by 90 per cent. The EC response has been to offer a cut of 30 per cent. If that were a genuine figure, it might be a step—albeit a small step—in the right direction. It would not be bad news if we could save £5 or £6 a week for the average British consumer. There would
214
then be some hope of Third-world and east European producers being able to start selling their goods on world markets at real prices.
The European Commission's response, however, has been phoney. The small print of the EC reply to the GATT negotiators says that half the 30 per cent. cut in subsidies has already been achieved, apparently without anyone noticing, and that EC farmers will be compensated with other subsidies for reductions in subsidy resulting from the GATT talks. The EC document concerned reads:
"The Commission will propose measures to compensate for losses that the liberalisation of agricultural trade will cause to farmers' incomes".
In plain language, that means that whatever subsidies are reduced on the GATT swings will be increased again on the Commission's roundabouts.
The European parliamentarians seem perfectly happy to go along with this folly—to give the nod to this series of jolly backhanders. Indeed, they want to increase spending on subsidies. Our amendment draws attention to the increase in the EAGGF guarantees and guidance proposed by the European Parliament—it expresses astonishment at them. When European parliamentarians are asked what they did in the great trade war in years to come, they will say, "We stoked it up. We proposed an increase of 16 per cent." These MEPs will soon discover that a fool's paradise can be the anteroom to a fool's hell. All hell will break out if GATT breaks down, as I now think it will, and we will be back to the dark ages of protectionism, trade wars, hardship and starvation.
We must get back to fundamentals and recognise that today's farm policies in the EEC were created at a time when the Commission was erroneously predicting world food shortages. When I campaigned for a yes vote in the 1976 referendum, the arguments of almost all those in favour of staying in the Community included the cry that we should stay in because we needed access to adequate food supplies.
Now it is clear that all this was a charade. There never were going to be shortages of agricultural or food supplies. We live in a world of agricultural abundance. Hunger is caused by inefficiency and poverty, not by scarcity or inability to produce. Over-production is the problem. Sooner or later, we must grasp the nettle and set farmers free. We must give them the basic economic freedom to produce what they want, using whatever technologies they want, and to sell their produce freely at home or overseas at the prices they can get for it.
That would be a revolution—uncomfortable, but no worse than the original GATT revolution when manufacturing industry was set free—to the great benefit of world trade and prosperity. Of course the revolution could not be effected overnight. There would have to be a crawling-peg phase-out of agricultural subsidies over several years and special arrangements for small family farmers and hill farmers. There would be a lot of political trouble, but Europe must put its agricultural house in order.
The Government have a good record of pushing for these reforms. I noted that my hon. Friend the Minister said that it will be essential to resist further increases in agricultural spending. He avoided saying how he would resist them, but we shall be glad to take his word for that, just as we take at face value statements supporting the GATT negotiations from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Dykes: Will my hon. Friend join me and others in calling on the United States at least to reduce and possibly even to abolish its internal deficiency payment support system, which forms the bulk of United States internal support arrangements?
Mr. Aitken: I agree that the United States does not have clean hands in this matter and that it, too, must deal with its enormous subsidies. There have been some signs in the negotiations that it is willing to do that. At least America has someone with whom to negotiate seriously. The United States has sided with the Third world producers——
Mr. Dykes: The difference is that the United States is siding with the Third world and others in respect of the export refund system but not of the internal support payment system.
Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right, but it is good to support reforms of export subsidies on prices. So far, Britain alone in Europe has been a good European and a good internationalist in this matter. We have been pressing for change, and I applaud the stand that our Government have taken thus far, which is why I shall advise my hon. Friends not to vote against the Government on this amendment, important though it is and correct though its terms are.
The Commission is fiddling around with the treaty of Rome while the GATT talks burn, seeming to regard it as a higher priority to hold inter-governmental conferences on political and economic and monetary union while neglecting these more vital issues. If the amendment does nothing else, it will concentrate the eyes of the House, as the eyes of the world are concentrated, on the serious crisis in GATT which will blow up into a catastrophe unless Europe starts to put its agricultural house in order along the lines that I have suggested.
6.6 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), although his amendment is rather wimpish. If it had really encapsulated his genuine anger, it would have been couched in stronger language.
I shall not delay the House long because we have only until 7 pm to discuss this important series of budget proposals. I went and collected my papers on them from the Vote Office; any documents that come in such great quantities must contain information of some value, but having to get through them all in a two-hour debate makes a mockery of the procedures of this House, of the EC budget and of the way in which it is discussed by those who are supposed to have some influence on or control over what takes place.
It is virtually impossible to understand the subject of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) talked about presentation. I asked the Minister a genuine question because I had become confused about what budget we were considering. I see at least two figures for the 1991 budget: one of 55,472 mecu and one of 59,384 mecu. I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who knows a great deal more about these matters than I do, that there are draft preliminary budgets, preliminary budgets, final budgets and all sorts of others, and I do not know which one we are discussing this evening.
216
I am not sure either which conversion rate we are using, which is why I asked the Minister whether we were using the rate of £1 to 1·387 ecu—the figure given by the Select Committee on European Legislation—or the rate of £1 to 1·435 ecu—the figure that the Government use. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the latter rate does not exist anyway—it is all nonsense.
The common agricultural policy is making a mockery of the EC and reducing it to the level of the absurd. I was not able to follow the figures given by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) because, when I looked at the budget, it seemed that the amounts allocated to the CAP worked out at about 56 per cent. of the total, whereas the hon. Gentleman said that it was two thirds.
Mr. Butcher: I listened with great interest when the hon. Gentleman asked for the figures to be provided in pounds. Does he think that he has been well served by his Front-Bench spokesmen on the matter of European monetary union, which, if followed to its logical conclusion, will mean that the pound will go? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to test his Front-Bench spokesmen on what yesterday's statement means for the future of the pound?
Mr. Banks: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not realising that I am a Front Bencher. I do not brag about that outside because careerism is not looked upon with great affection by the London Labour movement. I am quite satisfied with the explanations given in the debate by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. This is a complicated matter.
I have said that I look forward to the day when we have a federal Europe with only one currency, one European Government, one President, one Chancellor and so on. I should add that that is not Opposition Front-Bench policy. Nothing that my Front-Bench colleagues have said in the debate frightens or worries me. We have a long way to go. The common agricultural policy is at the centre of our debate and it is making nonsense of the whole European movement. It reduces it to a sordid, silly and scandalous level. Until we get rid of the CAP and the nonsense that it encapsulates, the whole concept of Europe and the EEC will be ridiculed all over Britain.
6.11 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: We should realise that the common agricultural policy was wrong from the beginning. I campaigned against entry to Europe and I warned the farmers in my Province about what would happen. It has happened. Northern Ireland had a prosperous agricultural community. What happened to it? We were not allowed to purchase at reasonable prices feedingstuffs on the world market and as a result we lost two thirds of our laying fowl and two thirds of our pig industry. The whole system is catching up on us and we are beginning to see where we are going. I am a Member of the European Parliament and I can tell the House that there is only one common policy in Europe—the common agricultural policy. That is why there is such a rage to pour money into it.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: There is also the common fisheries policy. When the hon. Gentleman warned his farmers about the dangers of the CAP, did he also warn fishermen in his Province about the

217
dangers inherent in the common fisheries policy? Does he agree that the interests of fishermen seem to be disregarded by the decision makers in Brussels?
Rev. Ian Paisley: The common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy are tied together.
I warned our fishermen about what would happen. It has happened and will continue to happen unless we apply the brakes. However, the House cannot apply the brakes. I asked an Opposition spokesman to tell me what power we had. He said that we could scrutinise what Ministers do in Europe. Our Ministers can fight with all their might but when the votes are cast the majority in Europe will be against them. There is no point in hon. Members hammering Ministers, because Ministers have no power in Europe. The House needs more than scrutinising power. It needs real power so that it can call a halt.
Our farmers were encouraged to spend vast sums on dairy farming and beef production. Now they are penalised because they did what the Common Market told them to do. They cannot now be told that their subsidies will have to go. I am totally against farmers resorting to violence, but I understand how they feel. They did what the Common Market told them to do—produce, produce, produce—but they did it too well and now they are being penalised.
If we are to unshackle ourselves, we must formulate a policy that will help farmers in the interim. Farmers would be glad to be free, but to bring about that freedom, we must have a reasonable policy and neither the Government nor the Opposition have said anything about that. I recently pressed Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on how to help farmers. There does not seem to be a policy on that.
The backcloth to Europe is monetary and political union. I was amazed at some of the statements about the former Prime Minister. Our local newspaper on Saturday sated:
ad of Germany's central bank said yesterday Mrs. Thatcher 'was absolutely right' in warning that EC monetary union would weaken sovereignty.
And he told Common Market countries they should take heed. The Bundesbank president … Stockholm School of Economics: 'As a matter of fact monetary union means a loss of sovereignty'.
Market states must be careful to avoid what happened with German reunification. There monetary union forced political union, he said."
That is the head of the central bank and not the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) speaking. We should heed that warning and find a way to free ourselves from the shackles and set the farmers and the fishermen free.
No one knows more about fishermen who ply their trade off the coast of Ulster than I do, and I know how they feel. They see their trade being taken from them and there is nothing that they can do about it. We should face that. It is ridiculous that this British House of Commons has just two hours on a Tuesday afternoon to decide such an issue. That is the sorry pass to which the European Community has brought us.
6.18 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I agree only with the latter part of the speech by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), when he spoke about us having so little time to discuss this matter. I am not a member of the Stockholm school of economics, but I
218
appreciated the election address by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who seems to want to be the next President of the European Community.
There are several matters to be discussed and we have a short time in which to do it. The key issues in the debate are the parts of the budget that are clearly being cut, the direction of aid to eastern Europe, the assistance to front-line states in the Gulf, budgetary control and the budget in the wider context of European Community developments. Expenditure on agriculture seems to be dominating the debate. I understand why that is so, and I shall return to the matter.
It is clear from the Treasury's explanatory memo of 30 November that the European Parliament wants to spend more than the Budget Council. The differences arise because the Council has rejected the Parliament's amendments on research and has agreed only to token entries for the PERIFRA and like projects that are regional and environmental. Because of that, they are both extremely important.
We want to support the European Parliament's decision in those matters, but as it has little power, we must give it more power. Moreover, as its programmes are less than its financial perspective, budget rectitude appears to be being maintained. I cannot go into as much detail as I should like, but I regret that the preliminary draft budget for exchanges of young workers is being cut. I should have thought that it would be highly desirable to continue that, to obtain a greater understanding among the peoples of Europe.
There are also cuts in the Youth for Europe programme. The proposed cut in the PDB for that programme is 2·5 million ecu and, as with the proposed cut in the programme of exchanges of young workers, the European Parliament is trying to reverse that cut. Despite the importance of training young people, it has not been able to do so. Measures for disabled people are also to be cut, and that is extremely regrettable in this day and age, when social conditions for disabled people are improving. They should be able to obtain the necessary resources for a better quality of life.
There are other aspects of the programme—for example, support to eastern Europe is extremely important—but the two major aspects are agriculture and additionality. Quite rightly, many of us have been lobbied this afternoon about the latter by the Coalfield Communities Campaign. I listened with care to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) speaking about the agriculture budget and the CAP. However, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, the CAP is the only common policy that the European Commmunity has ever had. If there were other policies, there might be greater bargaining powers. By default, the European Community has not fashioned other policies, although it has had plenty of opportunity to do so over the past 15 years. I regret that, because we need other European policies to balance the CAP.
Many crocodile tears have been shed this evening about the CAP. I noted the comparison that the hon. Member for Thanet, South made with the deficiency payment system operating in the United States, which gives a great deal of support. The Americans have come to the GATT round negotiations with proposals for a 75 per cent. cut in subsidies, but that has yet to be debated by Congress. It is by no means certain that Congress will accede to such a

219
cut. Given the pork barrel politics of the mid-west and the farmers there, I doubt that it will go along with the 75 per cent. cut.
The post-war systems of support for agriculture in the United States, Canada and other countries, and in this country after the Agriculture Act 1947, and the CAP itself show that support for agriculture is a primary objective for all western Governments. Are we serious in wanting an overnight dismantling of those systems, with all that that will mean for agricultural communities? That life support system cannot be taken away from them all of a sudden.
We are all in favour of the liberalisation of trade and of GATT, but the reality is not as simple as that. There are grave distortions of trade on world markets. For example, one sees few Japanese cars in France, and few British cars in Japan. Great barriers need to be taken down, and it will take a long time to achieve that.
Our agriculture is in serious trouble. In the GATT round, a 30 per cent. cut has been proposed for European Community support, but Britain has been making cuts in support since 1984. Now, in 1990, we have the lowest farm incomes in real terms since 1945. That compares with the circumstances that made it necessary to introduce the Agriculture Act 1947 to support agriculture.
Farmers in my constituency are going bankrupt, and many young farmers are selling off their stock and letting their land. It is all very well to discuss matters of world trade and support systems in an academic manner, but farmers are suffering grievously and many of them will not survive the next 18 months. The matter must be treated seriously. If we are to readjust, we must bring into balance supply and demand in food, as that will even up the pricing system. We cannot let rip the market in agricultural products, because the market will not support our agriculture. European farmers demonstrated in Brussels and Japanese and American farmers demonstrated there, too, because their family farms will go under as a result of the GATT round.
World trade must be liberalised, but that cannot be achieved overnight and agriculture must continue to have support systems. I am thinking in particular of the family units not only in Wales but in Britain, the European Community and worldwide. There will be grave social unrest without a commitment to support systems. The planning of the CAP needs to be readjusted and its funding must be better directed to the family farming units that require support. There is undoubtedly wastage within the CAP, but that does not mean that we should abolish it. Without such better direction of funds, I fear for the future of our agriculture.
6.27 pm
Mr. John Butcher: I gave an undertaking that I would not detain the House for more than five minutes and I shall endeavour to discharge that undertaking.
This debate, coupled with the deliberations of the House on European monetary union and on the social and regional fund assistance, which have been linked to the debate by the Labour party, is of key importance. It is no exaggeration to say that the debate about European
220
monetary union is probably the biggest economic question as well as the biggest constitutional question that the House has faced since 1945.
Thus far, the House has tried to conduct the debate in an open and candid fashion. I hope that Labour Members will not think me too provocative if I point out that, hitherto, Labour Members have been able to lie back and watch the debate raging on the Government Benches, because they are putting together their policy documents—documents that will eventually surface in a manifesto that they will put before the public. I implore Labour Members to be a little more forthcoming than they were until yesterday. Yesterday, if I am interpreting the remarks of one of their Front Benchers properly, they attempted to outbid the Government in their enthusiasm for progression towards European monetary union.
I listened carefully to the Treasury shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). He appeared to say that there was a quid pro quo for the Labour party's resolute commitment to European monetary union—that a future Labour Government would argue for a major increase in regional fund expenditure and assistance to the poorer regions. Presumably that includes the poorer regions of Britain.
That is an awful attempt to sell the parliamentary Labour party an utterly false prospectus. There are only three contributors to the fund—Germany, France and the United Kingdom. One of them, Germany, has plenty to do in funding a £150 billion programme—which is tantamount to a huge welfare programme—for its cousins and other relatives in the eastern provinces of the new federal republic. The key paymaster of that fund is in no position to consider either increases in or additional takes from countries such as the United Kingdom, let alone Greece, Spain, Portugal and others. If the Labour party is arguing that it will go for full-blown EMU—which it appears to be doing—on the basis that it will get back resources from the Commission, it is misleading its supporters in the House.
It is ironic that we are having this debate on regional aid. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury quite literally included it. If the Germans will not pay, and if the French just stand pat—which they usually do—the only people who can increase the payments of the fund are the British. What is the Labour party's argument? Presumably it is that Britain must increase its payments to Europe in order to achieve a bigger payment from the regional fund, in exchange for a loss of sovereignty on our currency and constitutionally—something that most members of the Labour party, both rank and file and in this House, would find unacceptable. What a way to run a debate on the biggest question facing this country since 1945.
I have made my views on the common agricultural policy clear. There is a dangerous threat to the GATT round. I am not a socialist, but I have argued in some two dozen Council of Ministers meetings in Europe for the interests of the third world and the poorer countries in their trading relationships with the EEC. I have argued for the Lomé countries. If we do not achieve a clear position on a free-trading, open-looking Europe, with zero barriers, our arguments on aid programmes to help those poorer countries will be academic and meaningless. There will be a huge lacuna in the logic that we have deployed to get to that protectionist position in Europe.

221
Hitherto, the real debate may have taken place on only one side of the Chamber. As of yesterday, the real debate appears to be beginning on the other side, the Opposition side. I hope that this House will be accorded the privilege of a free vote on these issues. It has been argued elsewhere that there should even be a referendum. I sincerely hope that the House will do its fellow EEC members the courtesy of candid information and an open and honest debate on this question.
6.34 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall follow the fine example set by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and make only a brief intervention.
I part company with the hon. Gentleman in his criticism of the role of the parliamentary Labour party in the debate. The major defining characteristic of debates on critical matters such as this is the lack of interest displayed by so many hon. Members on both sides of the House. A few moments ago, when we debated the decision of the President of the European Court of Justice on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—an important decision concerning the constitutional position of this Parliament—there were fewer than 18 hon. Members in the Chamber. That is characteristic of this place—an appalling and near-fatal lack of interest in what is taking place within the European Community of 12 nations.
I agree with much of what has been said about: the disastrous common agricultural policy. It has damaged, and continues severely to damage, the very structure of the European Community. I hold a similar view on the common fisheries policy. That so-called common policy is falling into even further disrepute in our fishing communities.
The plain fact is that the European Community fishing fleet is too big for the stocks upon which it depends. The fleet must be severely reduced, especially in the United Kingdom. According to the multi-annual guidance programme, our fleet must suffer a reduction of between 30 and 40 per cent. before the end of 1991. If that sort of reduction must be inflicted upon our fishing fleet and our fishermen, and on those who find their work in that indigenous industry, it must be done humanely. There must be a decommissioning scheme, both in this country and in the littoral states of the European Community, that will allow fishermen to avoid the terrible fate of being driven ashore and into bankruptcy.
We are talking not only of people being put out of work but of small coastal communities, located hundreds of miles from Brussels—indeed, hundreds of miles from London—that will wither away. The only beneficiaries will be the people looking for holiday homes in our picturesque fishing villages.
Mr. Gill: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on the fishing industry. Is it not ironic that the position in the fishing industry that he is describing has come about despite many programmes of aid to assist with the building of new vessels, all with the aim of improving the marketing and production of the product? Is that not symptomatic of what will happen to all the industries affected by structural funds? Despite all the benefits that are supposed to flow from the introduction of structural funds, it all appears to end in tears.
Dr. Godman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I blame both Conservative and Labour Administrations. While we have had to face up to those MAGP applications, our fishing fleets have grown in size. That is an insane policy, given the fragile nature of stocks, especially those in the North sea. Indeed, off the west coast of Scotland and in the Irish sea, the stocks are equally fragile. We cannot allow them to be overfished, or the small communities will be destroyed. That would be a scandal for the nation and for Parliament.
I hope that I can elicit a response from the Minister on two points. First, it might surprise some hon. Members to know that I am pleased about two elements in the huge document that we have. One, on pages 529 and 530, is the aid programme of 20 million ecus for Romanian orphanages. Will United Kingdom non-governmental organisations be involved in the monitoring of that aid? There has been a deal of press speculation about the somewhat shady characters who have become involved in aid for those young children in such desperate circumstances.
What monitoring will there be, and can we be certain that the aid will go to those young children who so desperately need such assistance? Will the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, which has considerable experience in assisting children caught up in equally tragic circumstances, be involved? Despite the powerlessness of this place in seeking to restrain or influence decisions taken at a strategic level in Brussels, those are important questions for the young children in the Romanian orphanages.
Secondly, I welcome the aid for financial and technical co-operation with Latin American developing countries which is detailed on pages 483 and 484. I have genuine hopes for the establishment of democracies in, for example, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. In El Salvador, the United Nations mediators are playing an important role in bringing guerrillas, the army and the so-called Government to the negotiating table. More aid should be given to those countries, but what discussions have taken place with United Nations officials who are directly concerned with establishing parliamentary democracies in such countries, particularly the three that I have mentioned?
6.42 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): This has been a useful and helpful debate but, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) knows, the Opposition Benches are empty because nothing can be done about the massive expenditure of £40,000 million, or about the court decision now affecting his fishermen and others throughout the United Kingdom. Basically, we are utterly powerless. Only if the Minister were to accept the amendment could any good at all come of this debate.
We know that jobs in every constituency will be affected, factories will close and trade will be disrupted if the GATT talks break down. Those talks are breaking down because, sadly, the EC has become the protectionist wrecker of the GATT. Instead of offering some reduction in farm spending, we have offered a bogus formula, which I am sure that the Minister accepts is not a reduction in the farm subsidy at all. Half the alleged 30 per cent. cut in the £23,000 million farm subsidy has, it is claimed, already taken place and the other half will be replaced by other

223
subsidies. The Minister must at least tell the GATT that the United Kingdom recognises that the EC has offered nothing, that that is scandalous and that we will work in any way that we can within the EC to see that there is some meaningful comparison.
Those who think that farm subsidies have not been increasing should look at a parliamentary answer given on 19 October which set out clearly the fact that since the Government came to power agricultural subsidies from the EC have increased by about 260 per cent. and, since we joined the EC, they have increased by about 1,000 per cent. Looking to the future, all the signs are that, in 1991, agricultural spending will go through the roof.
The reasons are obvious. The beef and lamb markets have collapsed, while production has increased. We all know that that is true. In addition, the exchange rate of the dollar has fallen and German unification has imposed extra costs, all of which will add to the FEOGA guarantee commitments. If that happens, the EC will do yet another accountancy fiddle, and then what will the Government do? As the Minister said, in 1987 there was the agreement on strict budgetary controls, but when it came to 1988 an accountancy fraud was perpetrated by means of a metric year. The Minister works hard for us in Europe and I think that he knows that the same thing will happen next year. All the signs are that we will break through the new higher barriers, and the only way that we will be able to cope is through another accountancy fraud.
We should accept that there is no way in which the EC will agree to reform of the CAP. Any thoughts of that should simply be thrown aside. There is not the slightest chance that all the silly talk about new reforms and controls will have any effect. They can simply be overcome by an accountancy fraud, or some other kind of fraud. The Minister knows that fraud exists because the figures given disregard special provisions made for the elimination of surpluses of 1,400 mecu.
What on earth can we do? The Government must start saying what they think about this. That would be a step forward. The next time the EC wants more cash, we shall simply have to say no. That will be the only point at which we shall have any power. Unless we say no, we are completely and utterly powerless.
I hope that the Government will not follow the shameful example of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). This has been a good debate and I agree that most hon. Members have spoken sincerely, but the hon. Gentleman, when asked whether he was in favour of cutting agricultural subsidies, said no, he was just in favour of cutting a proportion and that, if other expenditure was increased, a proportion would be kept.
That is shameful, speaking as the hon. Gentleman does for a party which represents working people and for whom it has fought sincerely and fairly. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. He should appreciate that people in London are homeless and people elsewhere are starving, while he and his colleagues are agreeing to spend £140 million each and every week on the dumping and destruction of food.
There is nothing that we can do about that dreadful spending, the fraud or the fact that we shall once again break through all the limits while the same old tactics are used, but I hope that hon. Members will realise that what
224
we are doing today will have a nasty effect on jobs. I hope that the Government will start saying clearly that they believe that what is happening to the CAP is shameful, that it helps no one and that they disagree with the CAP proposals and the EC stance in the Uruguay round, which is simply a fraud and a farce, as are so many things to do with the EC.
6.48 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: The explanatory memorandum states on page 4 that the Community budget has significant financial and policy implications. That is certainly an understatement. The budget perpetuates the structural funds, the regional development fund, the social fund and not least, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, the 30 million ecu to be spent on the agricultural guidance and guarantee fund.
The structural fund has done great harm to both the agricultural and fisheries industries. We have only to look at the end result to know that is so. There is over-production, and mortal damage has been done to traditional family farming. An otherwise efficient industry has been weakened, and serious international antagonism has been created. That is apparent in the current GATT round, and many of us are aware of the damage that has been done to the Third world in the process.
Higher expenditure, lower incomes, and chaos in world markets are the consequence of the structural fund. Does my right hon. Friend accept that fraud is endemic and deep rooted in many budget policies? How many of these budget measures would the Government have taken on their own account? Are the Government satisfied that the functions performed under the budget are not already duplicated by British organisations such as development boards and agencies? How do many of the articles in the budget accord with our political principles of non-intervention and a free market economy?
Mr. Roger Knapman: If subsidiarity means anything at all, could not agricultural support be left to national farmers?
Mr. Gill: If subsidiarity is to be made meaningful, the British Government will have to do an enormous amount to make it a reality. I am sad to say that we are at fault in this country in taking to the centre rights and controls that really belong with lower authorities. My hon. Friend makes a good point when he suggests that agricultural support should be repatriated to the United Kingdom, so that we may exercise more control over how our farmers are supported, and have more say in the way in which our intrinsically efficient industry, which can compete not only in the European market but worldwide, should develop. It would be so much easier to make such considerations within our own shores.
The final question that I wish to put to my hon. Friend is whether he recognises in the budget that is before us yet another blueprint for socialism.
6.53 pm
Mr. Maude: This has been a valuable debate, and not one that has taken a party political approach, which is desirable and right. The House properly takes a serious interest in these matters, and I regret that our debate had to be truncated, with rather less than two hours available

225
to us. The debate was originally meant to last half a day. If there had been fewer bogus points of order from Opposition Members at the beginning, more time would have been available for debate.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked whether there would be monitoring by British non-governmental organisations of support to Romanian orphanages. I cannot provide him with an answer, but I acknowledge his genuine and proper concern, and I shall ensure that he receives a satisfactory reply. The hon. Gentleman asked also about aid to Latin American countries and whether there had been discussions with UN officials concerned with the establishment of democracies. I understand that such discussions have taken place, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer. I shall ensure that my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provide the hon. Gentleman with a reply as soon as possible.
Much of the debate focused on the common agricultural policy. As a Minister, one is always keen to try to draw together the sense of the House and to achieve a consensus. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that the common agricultural policy has not found many friends in the House today. Attitudes have ranged from the very hostile to the fairly hostile, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), to whose contribution I shall refer later.
Clearly it is undesirable that spending on the CAP should increase further, but clearly it will be difficult to constrain an increase in spending. Equally clearly, we must continue trying to do so, as we have done consistently during our term of office. I am not as despondent as some of my hon. Friends about the prospects of achieving a resolution to the GATT negotiations. I believe that realism will prevail and that there will be a satisfactory outcome. It is of overwhelming importance that there should be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) warned, the absence of an agreement would lead to a perhaps not so gradual erosion of the multilateral trading arrangements, which would bring impoverishment across the world. There is an enormously heavy burden on those conducting the negotiations to do so in a way that will allow agreement to be reached.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asked whether I accept that there is fraud in the European Community. Yes, I do. Of course there is fraud in the way in which some of the European Community's money is spent. It is essential that proper action is taken to fight that. I mentioned the budget line of additional funds to fight fraud. The Commission has started to take the problem seriously, and I assure my hon. Friend that the British Government at least will be constantly at hand to ensure that the Commission retains an interest in the fight against fraud.
My hon. Friend asked also whether there is duplication of spending. I believe not, in this country. We do all that we can to avoid duplication. I know from a previous office that I held of my hon. Friend's close interest in subsidiarity, which I am glad that he maintains.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor expressed passing concern about the disproportionate amount of agricultural spending. His solution is that, rather than control agricultural spending, more should be spent on everything else. That thought had an echo in the contribution of the hon. Member for Islington, South and
226
Finsbury (Mr.Smith), whose remarks were rather illuminating. He spoke of economic and monetary union, and seemed to believe that it would be all right for Britain to lose the power to take decisions, provided there were huge transfers of resources.
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, if there were to be such transfers, they would overwhelmingly be from the United Kingdom to elsewhere. If the hon. Gentleman had understood that—which I doubt—he might well take a different view about whether the proposals constitute a good bargain for the United Kingdom. I do not believe that they do; I believe that they constitute a very bad bargain.
In general, the hon. Gentleman's speech demonstrated an extraordinarily undiscriminating approach to the European Community budget. He read out a list of the European Parliament's proposals to increase spending, all of which had nice cuddly titles. That is all that the hon. Gentleman knew about them: they sounded nice. If that is the Labour party's approach to public spending—if it sounds nice, commit yourself to it and look at the small print later—it is lucky that Labour's chances of being elected are very slight. Its attitude seems to be, "If it sounds nice, buy it; if the European Parliament suggests it, buy it; if the two coincide, we must have it."
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must now put the Question on the amendment.
Mr. Aitken: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that, as it is now 7 pm, the hon. Gentleman cannot withdraw the amendment. By resolution of the House, I must put the Question.
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [30 November], to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
The House divided: Ayes 20, Noes 188.

Division No. 17]

[7pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Lewis, Terry

Aitken, Jonathan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Body, Sir Richard

Moate, Roger

Canavan, Dennis

Nellist, Dave

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Skinner, Dennis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Spearing, Nigel

Dalyell, Tarn

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Fry, Peter

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Gill, Christopher

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Bob Cryer.

Kilfedder, James

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Benyon, W.

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Allason, Rupert

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Amess, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Amos, Alan

Bottomley, Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Brazier, Julian

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Ashby, David

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

Aspinwall, Jack

Browne, John (Winchester)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Batiste, Spencer

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Beith, A. J.

Buck, Sir Antony

Bellingham, Henry

Budgen, Nicholas

Bellotti, David

Burt, Alistair

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Butcher, John

227

Butler, Chris

Harris, David

Butterfill, John

Hayward, Robert

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hill, James

Carrington, Matthew

Hind, Kenneth

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Holt, Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Hordern, Sir Peter

Chope, Christopher

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Churchill, Mr

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howells, Geraint

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Colvin, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Irvine, Michael

Cope, Rt Hon John

Kennedy, Charles

Cran, James

Key, Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

Kirkhope, Timothy

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Kirkwood, Archy

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knapman, Roger

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Dunn, Bob

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Durant, Tony

Knowles, Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Knox, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Latham, Michael

Evennett, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lightbown, David

Forth, Eric

Livsey, Richard

Franks, Cecil

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Freeman, Roger

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

French, Douglas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Malins, Humfrey

Goodlad, Alastair

Mans, Keith

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marland, Paul

Gorst, John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Maude, Hon Francis

Gregory, Conal

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Ground, Patrick

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Grylls, Michael

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Hague, William

Miller, Sir Hal

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hannam, John

Mitchell, Sir David

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

Monro, Sir Hector

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Morrison, Sir Charles

228

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Moss, Malcolm

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mudd, David

Stern, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Nicholls, Patrick

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Norris, Steve

Summerson, Hugo

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Paice, James

Thorne, Neil

Patnick, Irvine

Thornton, Malcolm

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thurnham, Peter

Pawsey, James

Tredinnick, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Trippier, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Trotter, Neville

Powell, William (Corby)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Price, Sir David

Wallace, James

Raffan, Keith

Waller, Gary

Rhodes James, Robert

Watts, John

Riddick, Graham

Wells, Bowen

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Widdecombe, Ann

Rowe, Andrew

Wiggin, Jerry

Ryder, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Sackville, Hon Tom

Wilshire, David

Salmond, Alex

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wolfson, Mark

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wood, Timothy

Shersby, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Tellers for the Noes:

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to the said Order, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. COM(90) 121, relating to the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991. 8182/90 relating to the Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991, and 9865/90 and the supplementary explanatory memorandum submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on 30th November 1990, relating to the European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the draft Budget.

Private Business
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That so much of the Lords Message [12 November] as relates to the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Shard Bridge Bill be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7.12 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to have been called so early in the debate, although I suppose that it reflects the great concern that the Chair, like the Government and the Opposition, has had about the way in which the private Bills that we are debating have come before the House. I shall not rehearse again the variety of arguments that have been adduced in the past—[Interruption.]
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would ask hon. Members who are engaged in conversation to come to order. We are concerned with important measures. I am trying to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is saying, and I would like to hear him in reasonable silence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for that helpful intervention, which I feel sure the whole House will take.
Mr. Bell: I will explain briefly why the revival motion on the four Bills with which we are concerned should not be approved. Hon. Members will know that my main concern is the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, although I am sure that other Opposition Members will speak about the other measures that we are debating. There are many reasons why the revival motion should be rejected, one of the main being that we have always argued that the use of the private Bill procedure in this way is a corruption of public Government policy. In other words, because the Government could not find time for the privatisation of the trust ports—because of their crowded programme involving public legislation—they have used the private Bill procedure.
Indeed, they advised the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to take the private Bill route. That advice was given by a former Secretary of State for Transport. the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). I cannot recall how many Secretaries of State for Transport we have had since that right hon. Gentleman left office, but he originally asked the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to adopt the private Bill procedure and promised that it would be supported in the House. I have no doubt that, to ensure that the revival motion is approved, the payroll vote is hovering in the corridors and tea rooms waiting for the vote to be called.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport was honest when speaking at earlier stages of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. He accepted from the Dispatch Box that the Government did not have time for a public Bill, that a private Bill was the answer and that, for that reason alone, the private Bill route had been chosen. My hon. Friends and I have argued that that procedure is a corruption of our proceedings. Over the years we have seen that corruption entering our proceedings in a sinister way, permitting them to fit in with the Government's
230
programme. That happened with the Associated British Ports Act 1990 and it is happening with the Bills with which we are dealing today.
Such a procedure concerns us greatly, and that is why we are opposing the revival motion. Our opposition is based on our belief that the proceedings of this legislature are being corrupted by the Executive. We are confirmed in that belief by the passage in the recent Queen's Speech saying:
"Legislation will be introduced to privately finance roads; to reform procedures for streetworks; to improve road traffic; to convert trust ports into private companies".
Tonight we are faced with a private Bill the purpose of which is to privatise a port, and the Government have given a legislative commitment in the Queen's Speech to privatise trust ports and convert them into private companies.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: How many trust ports are there, other than the Clyde port authority and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority?
Mr. Bell: I believe that throughout the country there are 36 trust ports. The Government will face the difficulty that when they try to privatise them, they will find that many of them do not have the assets that are available to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Like all the other ideological commitments of the Conservatives, when the Government discovered that the trust ports had massive assets—the Tees and Hartlepool port authority's assets total about £58 million—they started by wanting to take 50 per cent. of the assets, with a further percentage being taken by way of capital gains. That is why we must oppose the revival motion.
As I said, I shall not rehearse all the arguments that have been adduced at other stages. This is neither the time nor the place to do that, and while my hon. Friends and I do not cast any aspersions on the Chair, we suggest that the Select Committee on Procedure should examine how we can be debating on the Floor of the House a private Bill when we are faced with a Government commitment in the Queen's Speech to privatise all the trust ports in the land. Considering the way in which our proceedings are being corrupted, we are left hoping that when the new Conservative leadership settles down——
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend says that he will not go over the arguments that have been rehearsed before on this issue. He should not be too reticent about arguing the full case on what is, after all, a fresh motion. It would do no harm to re-state some of the arguments that he used in previous debates. As he said, an important innovation is the reference to the matter in the Queen's Speech. That is relevant to the motion in view of the important step that the Government propose to take through the private Bill procedure. There have been complaints about Government legislation being undertaken through the private Bill procedure. I thought when I read the Queen's Speech that the Government had heeded the representations that had been made repeatedly and at length by Opposition Members. I urge my hon. Friend to examine the issues involved tonight with great care.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is right. When I read the Queen's Speech, I thought that Opposition Members, and perhaps the Minister, had had some influence on the Government. The Minister has survived a variety of

231
changes in Government and in leadership. Perhaps he had a modest role in ensuring that the private Bill procedure would be set aside for an appropriate procedure.
When the subject was raised on 22 October 1990, I drew attention to the contradictions in the methods of floating the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Mr. Charles Wellington had consistently said that there would be no stock market flotation and that shares would be offered to local pension funds and to the local work force. Opposition Members pointed out that, as the dock labour scheme has been abolished, the work force, sadly, has been diminished. The skills and jobs of many workers who had devoted their lives to the docks have been lost.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill makes no provision for shares for workers. It was agreed in Committee that an appropriate amendment will be moved in the other place, but no figure has been given. The Act to privatise trust ports may contain more generous provisions than the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that in responding to that intervention, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) will bear in mind the fact that we are dealing with a procedural motion. It would not be in order to go into detail on the merits of the Bills that are the subject of the motion.
Mr. Bell: I am trying to stay within the terms of the motion and to resist the blandishments of my hon. Friends to rehearse arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who sat on the Committee which considered the Bill, makes an important and valid point—that hon. Members have not been able to debate an amendment that was made in Committee because it goes directly to the other place.
Mr. Barnes: The point that I am making is that another measure will be brought before the House for the privatisation of trust ports generally. That could contain more generous provisions for workers' shares. That is why I thought that the point was relevant to our debate.
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is in some difficulty, but I hope that it is temporary.
Mr. Barnes: He does not have a leg to stand on.
Mr. Bell: He has a leg to stand on, but that has nothing to do with his support for the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill.
Opposition Members have not received an answer to their question about shares for the work force. We have not received an answer to the contradiction in the statements made by Mr. Charles Wellington, the secretary of the authority, and Mr. Hackney, its chief executive, on what will happen to the shares. We cannot pass the motion until we have received answers to those questions.
The Tees and Hartlepool port authority is spending the community's money on a massive publicity campaign to persuade local people that privatisation is in the interests of the local community. That must have cost about
232
£750,000, and I am sure that it will be quaking in its shoes about the possibility of an early election being called and the privatisation being set aside.
We oppose the motion because we have not received answers to our questions. We argued that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has ample provision in its articles of association to invest locally. Since the Bill's First Reading, the authority has made a series of local investments not in the port but in property. That exercise was futile because under its articles of association it was entitled to make such investment. The private Bill was also a futile exercise. It was a gleam in the eyes of the chief executive and the secretary of the authority, to the detriment of port workers.
I briefly mentioned the possibility of shares being issued to the work force, which has radically altered and reduced as a consequence of the dock labour scheme being abolished. It is not for me to rehearse the arguments, but we have fallen victim of the ideology of the Government, who got rid of the dock labour scheme and who put skilled men on the dole and replaced them with less skilled workers.
Mr. Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have criticised this privatisation and the port levy. Is his opposition to the motion based on the belief that no form of privatisation of the port authority is acceptable, however much improved and however much revised it is?
Mr. Bell: The trust port principle goes back 200 years. Its purpose was to serve the local community and strengthen the local port. It is the third largest port in the country. The port authority has invested in aviation and property. We have consistently said that its powers are adequate not only for local investment—Nissan uses the port for its exports and imports-but for it to invest elsewhere in the country if that is what it wishes. We cannot see why there should be any privatisation of the port.
Mr. Richard Holt: I am sure that I do not need to remind the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the City of London, that insufficient money can be raised from income obtained from dues. Money must be raised from the City to invest further and to develop properly, but the Tees and Hartlepool port is prevented from doing so. The only income—it is not allowed to borrow—is its daily income and revenue. That does not give it the scope to develop, as it will, and to bring economic well-being to the Teesside area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will link his remarks to the motion before us.
Mr. Bell: I will ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I take your advice to stay on the subject of the motion and the reasons why the House should not vote for it. I do not wish to be led unduly down the path suggested by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. However, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall answer his question.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh has taken the argument of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and turned it round the other way. The authority has said until now that it wants the Bill to be enacted because it has cash of £25 million in the bank which it cannot spend because it cannot find ways of investing that money. The authority

233
did not need to go to the City of London and it did not need to raise capital on the capital market because it had its own cash mountain. The authority said that it could not invest its money elsewhere because that would be ultra vires. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is not with us tonight, proved beyond doubt on Second Reading that the authority had ample powers to enable it to invest, so the argument was spurious.
The real reason for the Bill is that the authority originally envisaged a glorified management buy-out. Those at the top of the tree in the authority saw reasons for that. If the debates have done anything, they have removed that concept. We have obliged the authority to expand its so-called "share ownership" to a wider group of people than it had thought necessary. The argument of the hon. Member for Langbaurgh is wrong and, until now, the authority has not put it forward.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether the practice of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority is different from that of the Clyde port authority? I originally thought that there would be a public flotation along the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). After questioning, I realise that there will be no such flotation. The company is private and the members of the authority will decide who can buy the shares, so people can buy them only by invitation. There will be no question of seeking capital from the City of London; there will be a private invitation for people to have access to the shares. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what is happening?
Mr. Bell: To use an ancient metaphor, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The Tees and Hartlepool authority had £50 million of assets. Who would value the shares? Mr. Wellington, the secretary, said that a consortium would be set up to buy the port from a trust being formed on privatisation and that it would be a mixture of staff, of management, of local pension funds and of City institutions. He said that the authority would be advised by Rothschild financial advisers. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh wanted the City of London to be involved; it has already been involved through N. V. Rothschild. Later, Mr. Hackney, the chief executive, made it clear that there would be a flotation on the stock market two to three years later.
We are seeking to oppose the motion, yet we still do not know who the shareholders will be, how the shares will be dispensed, who the beneficiaries will be, how much will go to the work force and how much will end up in the City of London. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh seemed to confirm that there is a hidden agenda and that the Tees and Hartlepool authority will get into the hands of the City of London as quickly as it can. It seems that the authority will use the shares to raise money in the City and will then seek to increase its borrowing powers. Why anyone would want to borrow money when we have the Conservatives' high interest rates of 15 per cent., 16 per cent. and even, perhaps, 19 per cent., is beyond me. However, that is the scenario that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh has painted for us.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's ideology is not our driving force in this matter? Does my hon. Friend agree that we should welcome the motion if the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill was intended
234
simply to allow the trust ports extra powers to carry out their business as trust ports? As a result of the lack of certainty over the issue of shares, it is believed that the trust ports will be subject to a number of high charges. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said in a previous debate, the Government have seen the authority as a lucrative source. That is why we oppose the motion on which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) has outlined his arguments in such relevant detail.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend referred to extra powers. The former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Southend, West told the Tees and Hartlepool port authority that he would not allow legislation to come to the House under which the authority could be given those extra powers. Indeed, he argued that the authority did not need them. He said—and it was all written down—that, as he would not allow such legislation, the authority would have to take the route of privatisation arid of the private Bill. That is why we have the motion today. The right hon. Gentleman implied that there would be a Government payroll vote to get a private Bill through the House. The payroll vote, which may have changed slightly over the past few days, is lurking in the corridors of power, waiting to spring when there is a vote on the motion so that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill can continue in the other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has mentioned the variety of ways that the Government have discovered of taking money out of the trust ports. We debated that point when we discussed the Bill previously, so I will not repeat the arguments now. However, once the Government saw that there were assets of £50 million and that there had been grant money to the trust ports in the 1960s, they said in Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) will remember, that they would take 50 per cent. of those assets—£25 million—and would modify the Finance Bill to do so.
In addition, the Government said that, after the 50 per cent. had gone, 27·5 per cent. of the remainder would be taken in capital gains tax, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will remember. In that way, the £50 million of assets of the authority were reduced by some 63·75 per cent. The Government got their hands on more money for the Treasury, but it was, of course, to the detriment of the Tees and Hartlepool area and to those who had invested their lives on the quaysides and at the harbours. That is another reason why we oppose the motion.
The motion is an omnibus edition, which covers the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the Shard Bridge Bill and the London Underground (Victoria) Bill as well as the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. I have no comment to make on the first three Bills but have directed my attention to the fourth.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I presume that my hon. Friend's arguments on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill also apply to the Clyde Port Authority Bill, which proceeded ahead of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. Surely the argument that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill should not be passed because the Government intend to introduce enabling legislation applies equally to the Clyde Port Authority Bill.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friends will put the arguments on the Clyde Port Authority Bill later in the debate. One reason why we are opposed to the motion is that we do not have the answers to our earlier questions. We have shown clearly that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority had the power to create a host of jobs in construction, in transport, in leisure and in other industries. The motion is simply an extravaganza in the framework of the Government's overall policy. The Government are now contradicting themselves by their own public legislation. We have not had answers to any of our questions and, unless we persist in our opposition, we shall never get the answers. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East heard in Committee that commitments were made for the other place, but those are not of great assistance to us. We must concentrate on the motion tonight.
There has been an election for the leadership of the Conservative party. At least two of the candidates said that there should be a reform of parliamentary procedures. This Government have brought the private Bill procedure into severe disrepute by allowing the Associated British Ports Bill to take the private Bill route, and by doing the same for the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and for the Clyde Port Authority Bill. The sooner we revise our procedures, the better. We shall not then have to use the private Bill procedure to deal with matters that are properly the subject of pubic Bills. We shall not have to debate revival motions such as this, and the House will be a better place, introducing better legislation for the benefit of the public.
7.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I shall intervene but briefly because the motion before us is strictly procedural and my object is therefore simply to advise the House of the Government's view. It is not uncommon for private Bills not to complete all their stages in one Session. I believe that the promoters of such Bills have the right to expect the House to reach a decision on the merits of their proposals and not to have them discounted because of a procedural hazard. The private Bill procedure allows for carry-over and revival motions. The fact that the motion stands in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means shows that he is satisfied that all is in order——
Mr. Worthington: May I ask the Minister about one of the factors that will influence my decision whether to vote for the revival motion? Will the trust ports Bill that the Government are to introduce differ in any way from the Clyde Port Authority Bill and the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill? The Government have changed direction and are to make time available for the privatisation of the trust ports. It is therefore right to ask whether the proposals in their Bill will be similar to those in the private Bills.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to discuss proposals that may come before the House at a later stage. The Government's Bill has not yet been published, so I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a response. He must wait and see.
Mr. Harry Barnes: But there is a problem. We have been told all along that the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill is a pioneering measure. Those who
236
promoted it argued to the Committee that they were at the forefront of developments and that their example would be followed by other trust ports. If the Bill is really a pioneering measure, it will presumably form the framework for the public Bill that is to be introduced.
Mr. McLoughlin: Our object tonight is to reach a decision on a procedural motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. What the House decides in future is a matter for the House. I cannot say whether the public Bill will go through all its stages; the House will have to decide, although I hope that the Bill will receive the support that it so richly deserves.
Dr. Godman: Clause 4(3) of the Clyde Port Authority Bill refers to the privatised company taking on board the obligations of the authority. Will a similar provision be included in the forthcoming public Bill? Will the responsibilities now carried out by the 30 or so trust ports appear in the public Bill? Will the private companies have to fulfil those responsibilities and honour those obligations?
Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman because we are not discussing what may be in a Bill that we may introduce in due course. The public Bill will go through its Second Reading, Committee and Report stages and the House will then be able to question its contents and the powers contained in it. I repeat that we are here tonight to discuss a procedural motion tabled by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
I should perhaps remind the House that all four Bills were passed by this House before the end of the previous Session.
Mr. Worthington: The matter is most important to the Clyde port authority and, I am sure, to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Some Opposition Members are most concerned about the lack of safeguards. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to the powers of the port authorities. I am concerned about the lack of control in respect of the issue and sale of shares under the Clyde Port Authority Bill.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that any safeguards in the Bill that his Department is to introduce will apply to all the port authorities and that safeguards in respect of the ownership of shares will be written into the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Port Authority Bill? If they are not, the private Bills will be inferior to the public Bill.
Mr. McLoughlin: The private Bills have been through all their stages in the House of Commons. It is up to the House to reach a conclusion on the Bills before it. The hon. Gentleman is asking whether there will be retrospective legislation if a public Bill is passed. He must wait and see. I am not in a position to say one way or the other. I repeat that we must consider the procedural motion before us. If the Bills return from the other place with amendments, the House will have to consider them. That will be the appropriate time at which to discuss those matters.
In principle, the Bills are acceptable to the Department. The London Underground (Victoria) Bill, promoted by London Underground to enable essential safety work to be carried out at Victoria underground station to relieve congestion, has the Government's support. We therefore

237
support the revival motion. The promoters of the Bills are entitled to a decision based on the Bills' merits rather than having that decision frustrated by procedure. All the Bills are to go to the other place and it is quite right that they should be allowed to be considered further. If the Bills are passed in the other place, we shall have further opportunities to consider them on their merits.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The Minister said that it was right for the Bills to go to the other place. The Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill was introduced following a decision by three men representing the authority. The casting vote of the Chairman decided the matter. Is it right that such a Bill should go to the House of Lords when, as good parliamentarians, we know full well that, in the event of a tie on a serious matter such as this, custom has it that the Chairman should give his casting vote in favour of the status quo?
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in his attendance of our debates on the Bills and I have listened to his contributions with interest.
Mr. Leadbitter: But what is the answer?
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, but he knows that a majority is a majority, whether it be a majority of one or a majority of 100.
Mr. Leadbitter: I am merely seeking clarification. The Minister has always responded with reasonable concern for the questioner. Do we really want to set a precedent when we know—as a matter not of opinion but of evidence—that the decision to privatise was made by three people, and only three, with the Chairman's vote cast in favour of the Bill. The normal practice in the House is for the Chairman to cast his vote in favour of the status quo. When I first became a Chairman, my inexperience led me to vote against the status quo. I got my knuckles rapped. Does the Minister now say that it is all right and that the matter can go to the other place? In fairness, is it not inevitable that the Bill will go to the other place? Surely it is against parliamentary practice for him to say that that is right.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is not a Government motion; it is a motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am merely expressing the Government's point of view. The Chairman of Ways and Means must have been satisfied that all was in order for him to come forward with such a motion. On the hon. Gentleman's wider point—it is a genuine point—about the unsatisfactory way in which trust ports work and operate, I agree with him. Present accountability is not perhaps what one would desire.
Last December,in one of the first Adjournment debates to which I replied, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I discussed the old concept of trust ports. I said that, in some ways, accountability was not the most acceptable method. The hon. Gentleman pointed out all the problems in the current set-up of trust ports. hope that by following this route, trust ports will be free to do certain other things and also be more accountable. That is an important point. I am sometimes surprised by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). Although he attacks the Tees and Hartlepool port authority with some
238
vigour, he goes on to say what an excellent company it is and how well it is doing. We all share that view. We want it to be prosperous and successful.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I do not think that the Government can wash their hands of the affair, pass it to the Chairman of Ways and Means and say that it is in the House merely to recommend a technical measure to enable us to move forward. It has always been involved with the Tees and Hartlepool Bill. The measure was introduced so that 50 per cent. of finance would be transferred to the Treasury. If that had been written into the Tees and Hartlepool Bill, it would no longer have been a private Bill, it would have been a public Bill, and we should have found a way around it. At this stage matters have been superseded by other Government legislation. The Minister's Department initially encouraged Tees and Hartlepool to take exactly the line that it took to introduce the private measure. The Government are up to their neck in the provisions. They cannot simply say that the matter is technical—they must argue a political case in support.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not on this occasion, though. At the risk of tedious repetition, I remind the House that we are discussing a procedural motion. The four Bills have completed all their stages in the House of Commons, and we are considering the procedural motion relating to whether they should now be considered by the House of Lords. I fully acknowledge that there is a certain relevance to legislation that the Government may bring forward later. I understand that that can be an argument for or against the revival motion, but we cannot discuss the merits of the Bills on this occasion.
Mr. Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I meant was that, to support a procedural motion, there were political arguments about the right and wrongs of the case, which the Government needed to present to us to influence the situation. I grant that the decision that is then to be made is procedural and that procedural elements are important to it, but in backing up the procedural points, the matter is stretched further.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that point. I am being as helpful as I can to the House. As long as the arguments are for or against the revival motion, the debate will be in order.
Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on what you said a couple of minutes ago. If the procedural motion is passed, where stand the rights of petitioners? If it is successful, will it mean that petitioners will be able to place petitions with the other place? Where are the rights of petitioners with regard to the motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The rights of petitioners are not a matter for me, of course. The Bill has passed its stages in this House. If the motion is passed, the Bill will proceed to the Lords. The House of Lords has its own procedures for petitioning, and I have no authority to say what the procedures are in that regard.
Dr. Godman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the motion is passed, will petitioners have the right to put down petitions of objection to the Bill in the House of Commons?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. The procedure in this House on these Bills has been completed. All the stages have been gone through, so there are no further procedures other than the revival motion. Any further procedures will relate to the other place.
Mr. McLoughlin: It would be unfortunate not to agree to the motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I therefore urge the House to allow the Bills to be revived and to agree the motion. That would then allow full and proper consideration in the other place and for matters that may subsequently arise to be fully considered in the other place.
7.55 pm
Ms. Joan Walley: I shall be brief, as many of my hon. Friends wish to make important points.
It is extraordinary that we are debating this revival motion. We are told by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport that it is not a Government motion and that he is present technically on behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means to assist further consideration of the four private Bills when our major concern in respect of each of the Bills should be some way of introducing an integrated transport system. Procedurally there is no way in which the thrust of the four Bills can achieve an integrated transport system. That point must be considered in conjunction with the procedural motion.
Mr. McLoughlin: I am not here in preference to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I am here to point out the Government's position on the motion.
Ms. Walley: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, but it does not clarify the matter. It shows the confusion that there is about how to proceed with the four private Bills. It is a sharp practice. We have four private Bills, each of which should have a separate debate in its own right, which would give hon. Members an opportunity to vote on the issues involved in each of them. Of course, we shall not have an opportunity to do that. We may have one view on one private Bill and we may wish to see it proceed, but we may have valid reasons, as we have on port trusts, for thinking that it is not appropriate to proceed because of the arguments that have been well set out by my hon. Friends.
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady will agree that there have been debates on those matters, individually and separately, as one would expect with any Bill.
Ms. Walley: I do not agree. A debate occurred in the previous Session, but we are in a changed situation. The Queen's Speech promised new legislation on the port trusts. We are simply trying to establish whether the issue is one of principle that should best be left until the whole House has an opportunity to discuss new initiatives which the Government will bring forward and which I hope will be part of an integrated transport system, or whether we shall make decisions about what is to happen to two port trusts, and make those decisions in the dark. Clearly, at this stage we do not know what is in the draft legislation that is is still to be published and to come before the House. For that very reason, Opposition Members are in great difficulty about deciding whether to accept the revival motion.
240
We have before us a consultation procedure from the Government on private Bills and new procedures. Whether or not a new Prime Minister has been elected, everybody agrees that there is a clear and urgent need to examine the private Bill procedure and the way in which we conduct business in the House. Perhaps we should have the generosity to say that there will be occasions that suggest that the present procedures need to be redesigned and re-thought.
We have consultation documents and Bills hanging over from the previous Session. It is proposed that they should now be brought forward into this Session, but the Government have not said how the new procedures will be introduced. If it is possible for the Government to spend all this time bringing back private Bills when we now have the primary legislation that we were promised, why has it not been possible for the Government to deal with the issue of the new procedures which are so urgently needed? Important issues are set out for our consideration, such as environment impact assessments, and need to be considered for each of the four private Bills.
There is a great hurry, which makes me suspicious. I am also suspicious about the reasons for tabling the revival motion, which is aimed at getting the two port trust Bills quickly through this Session.
We have not heard any answers from the Minister about the Government's intentions in the new legislation. We have not had any answers about workers' shares. None of our questions has been answered. Nor have we heard anything about responsibilities for navigation and conservation. When we considered water privatisation, environmental protection was a key issue. The Government had to bring back a second set of proposals setting out the need for a National Rivers Authority. The Government had to recognise that there should be some separation——
Mr. McLoughlin: That was always Government policy.
Ms. Walley: No, it was not always Government policy. The early drafts did not suggest that. However, it was clear that safeguards were needed if the Government were to introduce their proposals to separate the different functions of gamekeeper and poacher, about which we heard so much. We need to know whether the new legislation on the port trusts will set out the conservation functions and the way in which those functions will be taken over by whatever replaces the port trusts.
We have not had any answers about retrospective legislation. Clearly we do not want one set of proposals in respect of two ports and a completely different set of proposals for all the other ports. Without safeguards, it is difficult to see how we can proceed.
So far, we have not heard anything about the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, which had fairly widespread support. The safety proposals were supported by hon Members of all parties. However, we have not heard anything from the Government about whether, if there is to be great haste in getting that private Bill on to the statute book, the £3 billion that has already been announced by the Secretary of State for Transport will be used to finance the vital work that the Bill would enable to go ahead. Given the current cash crisis, we need some assurances from the Minister about whether that work can proceed if the Bill is timetabled and given Royal Assent.

241
Those are all important issues. We are faced with an omnibus of different revival motions. New legislation is to be introduced later. However, we have not had any proper answers from the Minister, and I do not see how it is possible to proceed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to comment on the possible reform of private Bill procedure, but as procedure has been mentioned, perhaps it would help the House if I were to explain briefly and in a little more detail what the motion actually means and what the House will be doing if it passes it tonight.
Such motions are customary and have been approved regularly in previous Sessions when it is sought to suspend or revive Bills which have been passed by the Commons and which are currently under consideration by the Lords. On 12 November this year, the Lords informed this House that they had passed a resolution that, if the Bills were brought from the Commons in the present Session, they should resume progress at the stage that they had reached at Prorogation. The present motion is therefore a necessary procedural courtesy which has the effect of returning the Bills to the Lords for further consideration. The motion means no more and no less than that.
8.4 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that was a most eloquent observation on my earlier points of order.
To be honest,I was hoping that the promoter ic f the Clyde Port Authority Bill would be present to withdraw his Bill. However, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has been recalled to the first team in St. Andrew's house.
Taking on board what you said earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to place on the record the fact that I am unhappy about the motion, first, because it is a matter of deep regret that we are proceeding with the motion, which deals with the Clyde Port Authority Bill, when, the forthcoming public legislation will presumably deal with the other 30-odd trust ports——
Mr. Worthington: There are more than that.
Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend suggests that there may be more. I am concerned that we may not give adequate protection to those employed by, say, the Clyde port authority if we pass the motion.
Mr. Bell: I should like to correct what I said earlier. When asked how many trust ports there are, off the top of my head I said that there are 30; I should have said that there are 52.
Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. His intervention emphasises my point that we are dealing here with two trust ports out of a total of 50-odd. It is a matter of deep regret that we are debating this revival motion——
Mr. Harry Barnes: We need to sort out the problem about the number of trust ports. I have with me a map that was submitted to the Committee that considered the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. Totting up the number of trust ports on the map, I come to a figure of 40, plus one in the Isle of Wight. Perhaps the total of 52
242
includes municipal ports, company ports, nationally owned ports and associate member ports. Unless there is another avenue, it looks as though the number is 40.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the number of trust ports.
Dr. Godman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall stick rigorously to your instructions.
As I have said, I am concerned about the forthcoming public legislation. However, I hope that I shall also be in order if I say that we have fresh evidence about the CPA Bill to employ in our case against the motion. I do not see why the two port authorities referred to in the motion should be excluded from the forthcoming public legislation. New evidence has appeared since the House completed its consideration of the CPA Bill. Numerous recent concerns and developments bear upon that Bill, but even now, we cannot debate them.
One important matter that was brought to my attention in Greenock just a few days ago is the fact that the ownership of properties and land in Greenock that is claimed by the CPA is now disputed by men and women who can only be described as decent and honourable—I refer to the members of the Greenock Waterfront Heritage Association, which asserts with considerable justification that various waterfront properties claimed by the CPA belonged to the people of Greenock by way of a feu signed in the 18th century.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand, deep concern is being expressed over the tragic collision that took place not far from my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham)—the foundering of the motor fishing vessel Antares, with the loss of its four-man crew. The sinking, brought about by the collision between the vessel's gear and a submerged Royal Navy nuclear submarine highlights a number of issues which impinge on the Clyde Port Authority Bill.
We should be in a position to discuss with the CPA changes in navigational routes and the conduct of vessels, particularly military ones, in and around the firth of Clyde. The CPA, as presently constituted, could play an important mediating role to prevent the recurrence of such a dreadful tragedy. Such a navigational role in the firth of Clyde and the River Clyde, and dredging in the upper reaches of the Clyde cannot be left' to a private company.
There are developments ashore that impinge on the motion. Therefore, it would be best for all involved if the motion were not passed so that, by way of public legislation, we could come afresh to a Bill dealing with CPA ownership to examine recent developments, including tragic ones such as the sinking of the Antares and economic developments taking place in our constituencies on the banks of the Clyde. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie outlined in an intervention, there is concern about the selling and acquisition of shares in the Clyde Port Authority plc. I fear that such shares may eventually be acquired by those living far away from the Clyde, with no interest in it and its communities.
There are sound arguments against the revival motion, particularly in light of recent developments. They include the fears over share ownership in Clyde Port Authority plc, the legitimate worries of members of Greenock

243
Waterfront Heritage Association and others of my constituents who have an affection for the CPA and a respect for its officials. That affection and respect does not prevent them from criticising those officials and managers from time to time. There is deep concern about what will happen to the Clyde port authority when it becomes a private authority.
Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend is aware of the terrible tragedy that happened some time ago when six of my constituents lost their lives aboard the Destiny. The Clyde port authority is an agency that we hope would put forward plans and policies involving safety on pleasure craft and other vessels using property owned by the Clyde port authority. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of my concern and that of my constituents. It would be nonsense for the Clyde port authority to be taken away.
Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend raised an important issue. He referred to the tragic sinking of the motor fishing vessel Destiny, days before Christmas 1989. The vessel was skippered by Billy Irving of Gourock, a member of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. My hon. Friend is right that, where safety regulations govern sea angling expeditions in boats owned by Clydesiders, the Clyde port authority may well have a role to play that is perhaps more important than that of the district council, which determine the safety regulations. My hon. Friend is right—the CPA could make a useful contribution to determining regulations governing excursions such as the one that ended in deep tragedy for the families of my hon. Friend's six constituents. The CPA, as a public authority, could play an important role, but will be prevented from doing so when it is privatised.
I cannot ask the Minister to withdraw the motion because as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly said, it is a procedural motion. However, if the Bill is revived and resuscitated in its current condition, that decision will be treated with deep dismay and serious concern in my constituency and elsewhere on the Clyde. I urge my hon. Friends to argue against the motion because the Bill to which it refers—to put it in as disinterested a way as I can—is simply not worth reviving in its present form.
A privatised Clyde port authority may prove to be, in numerous respects, a far more efficient organisation than the present authority as a generator of employment in new and revitalised traditional industry. The CAP, as structured at present, is the best sort of organisation for the communities I represent in the towns of Greenock and Port Glasgow to deal with developments ashore and changes which may come about in the navigational channels in and around the firth of Clyde.
We are entering what is popularly called a post cold war era. To control vast submarines in the fishing grounds in and around the firth of Clyde, the Clyde port authority with its highly competent managers has a role to play: to separate fishing vessels and the submarines. I am not sure whether the Department of Transport can do that, with all due respect to the Minister and his colleagues. The job should be done by a locally based authority that enjoys the respect and trust of Clydeside communities——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it very difficult to link the hon. Gentleman's arguments to the revival motion.
Dr. Godman: I do not want to take advantage of your good nature and courtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The revival motion is a bad idea because legislation is to come for all the trust ports. This motion has come at a bad time and I am only sorry that I am not in a position to appeal to the sponsor of the Bill, asking him to withdraw it so that we can deal with the matter in a more sensible and tough-minded way. We could do that when discussing a Bill covering all the trust ports.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, members of a private Bill Committee must sign a declaration to the effect that they have no connection with or constitutional interest in the area covered by the Bill. That was done in the Committee discussing the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill but we now discover that that Bill has been influential in shaping the public Bill for port privatisation.
Two hon. Members who served on the private Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) represent constituencies in which there are trust ports——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This sounds to me more like a matter that could be discussed on the debate on the revival motion. I cannot see that there is a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Barnes: The normal procedures for the House for dealing with work in Committee have been tampered with, as a result of which the Government are to supersede the Tees and Hartlepool legislation with an omnibus Bill covering all the trust ports. The two hon. Members whom I have mentioned could fairly claim that trade in their areas was not affected by the Tees and Hartlepool measure but they certainly will be affected by the general Bill—and that has a bearing on whether Opposition Members will support the measure.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair but if the hon. Gentleman, with his well known ingenuity, catches the eye of the Chair he may be able to make these points during the debate.
8.26 pm
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The ruling on revival motions place the House in a straitjacket. Hon. Members who want to put forward their views, which are important to their constituencies and to the economy of their areas, must try not to displease the Chair and must set out to humour its occupant so as to earn a degree of flexibility. The House is at its best when we seek to comply with Standing Orders and the rulings of the Chair.
Bills of this sort are given a Second Reading, when we can argue more widely about the general principles of the Bill. Then, when the patience of the House has been fully exploited, we have a Standing Committee—in this case a private Bill hearing—after which the Bill returns to the House and hon. Members are obliged to hold a different sort of debate, as we did but recently when we discussed our worries based on the evidence brought to the Committee.

245
Now we must draw on the bank of knowledge of the Bill that has accumulated over a full year since the Bill was deposited on 27 November last year. We seek how best to adduce legitimate and salient arguments, linked directly or indirectly with the strictures governing the revival motion debate.
The paramount reason why we should not return the Bill to the House of Lords is simple and it should appeal to the prudence of the Government. As the Government have enabling legislation to privatise the trust ports on level terms, why should not those level terms apply to the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, which runs the third largest port in the United Kingdom? Moreover, a great deal of money has already been spent on this private Bill. As the objectives of the Government and of the port authority are the same—they both want privatisation ——
Mr. Don Dixon: The directors of the port authority.
Mr. Leadbitter: Indeed, the Government and the directors want the same thing. So why cannot we co-operate and save money by so doing?
A further reason for not returning the Bill to the Lords has to do with Government policy. The Tees and Hartlepool port authority has already spent almost £1 million on the Bill and the petitioners who are against it have already spent £160,000. In order to petition if the Bill goes to the Lords, thousands of pounds more will have to be spent. When the promoters deposited the Bill on 27 November last year, they knew that enabling legislation was coming before the House. Much money has already been spent, and prudence suggests that we should now save some.
The Minister may say that the outstanding idea of returning the Bill to the Lords is not a matter for him because it is a private Bill. In a letter that I received from the management of the Clyde port authority I learnt that which the Tees and Hartlepool port authority was not prepared to tell us, that the Clyde port authority was complying with the wishes of the Government. ii shall come later to the subterfuge. That authority shared the Government's thoughts on privatisation and the Government were actively promoting, aiding and abetting in the introduction of that Bill to the House, as was the case with the Tees and Hartlepool Bill.
The Minister could say that I am correct. The ports will be included in the Government's enabling measures in January and because the new Prime Minister may want to take the temperature of the electoral waters sooner than we think, it makes good sense for the Government to concern themselves with saving public money. They should consider ratepayers and taxpayers for a change. They could say, "As it is inevitable that the ports will be privatised, we should take away this tiddleywink Bill."
I am sure that the Minister saw some substance in my intervention and his assertion that the Bill had a night to go to the Lords was not exactly unchallenged. Perhaps he thought that I had something up my sleeve when I said that the Bill may go to the Lords on the vote of one out of 650 hon. Members—that is, the Chairman of the Private Bill Committee. When there is a changeover in the Chair, I do not like to have any misunderstandings. So that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may be put in the picture about the argument that I am patiently developing——
Madam Deputy Chairman (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have been listening outside.
Mr. Leadbitter: That shows that you are a good Chairman, because even when you are not in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are courteous enough to find out what is happening. I was talking about one vote. As long-serving Chairmen, Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that none of us dares use our casting vote in Committee except to maintain the status quo.
Mr. Harry Barnes: A further point relevant to my earlier point of order arises about the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). That constituency has in it Cowes trust port. By the exercise of his casting vote, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight involved himself in a scenario that pioneered the development of trust port privatisation through Tees and Hartlepool and led to other measures that affected his own trust port. Therefore, he contravened the provisions of a document that he had signed, which said that he had no interest in the measures that the Committee was discussing. It would at least have been prudent for the hon. Member for Isle of Wight not persistently to exercise his casting vote.
Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend may deal later much more succinctly and in detail with the theme that he introduced. I fully agree with him on that important matter.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to another aspect of the Bill. It pertains to why he should pass on the Bill to the Lords, which is what we are here to discuss. "Erskine May" lays down quite clearly that the members of a private Bill Committee should act in a judicial manner. That is quite different from a member of any other Committee who may have to apply opinion and political argument. My attention has reluctantly been drawn to the fallibilities of the legal profession, and I have had to check carefully to see whether I, with my small and rather limited experience in the House, have hit on a matter about which the House should be concerned. The Minister is no doubt wondering what I am about to say.
I have spoken about the money spent by the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. Everybody has accepted that. I said that it had spent almost £1 million, and when an hon. Member mentions a figure in the House we have to ask ourselves how he arrived at the amount and what are its components. About £500,000 was spent on advertising the privatisation of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority and that pre-empted the decision of the House. None of us is allowed to do that. We cannot act or speak outside on the assumption that the House will agree with us. It is the other way round because the House decides and we have to accept its decision. As I say, the promoters of the Bill spent £500,000 on a national advertising campaign, and the Chairman and members of the Committee must have read the statements in those advertisements. The beneficial effect of the judicial isolation of the Committee was breached.
That is not the only unfortunate aspect. So stupid is the Tees and Hartlepool port authority, so abrasive is its attitude, so completely ignorant is it of its pledge of support for the area, that it employed a London agency to do the job. The local area did not get the benefit of the £500,000.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Was not the amount spent entirely unreasonable, and is not the fact that it was spent outside the area a sign of the way things will go if the Bill is passed? The money will be spent on horizontal integration rather than on helping the local area.
Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend is right. However, I want to link this factor with the motion.
For reasons that I shall not go into, if the Bill were to go to the Lords, our petitioning against it would not be so strong. However, that money spent in the south underlines what the chief executive of the port authority said in his evidence. The parliamentary counsel asked him whether his private enterprise philosophy was contradictory to the purposes of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966, and he said, "That's why we've got the Bill."
Another reason why the Bill should not go to the House of Lords is that we should be satisfied before we let it go that things are being done in the best interests of the authority. When giving evidence, Mr. Hackney made it abundantly clear in reply to questions put to him by counsel that the constitution of the authority, under the 1966 Act, was adequate for all the purposes of the port. Apart from section 12(1), nothing in the Act makes it impossible for the port authority to invest as it wishes. For instance, it already has shares and investments in a wide range of non-port undertakings.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) challenged me. Unfortunately, he has been kicked in the leg, or threatened with reselection, or has had a seizure, so he is not here. We do not know why he is not here, but as we are concerned with each other's health, I shall be asking about his welfare. I know that things are hard for the Conservative party. He may feel that the time has come for retirement and is practising for that.
I must apologise to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh. I was challenged by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who is also not here. A fit man does not come here, when a lame man has. He asked whether it was possible for a trust port to have shares in a Government agency. I thought that perhaps I should check on that, and the documents show that it is the other way.
The fanciful thing is that I object to the Bill going to the Lords because, apart from one or two hon. Members, of whom I am one, nobody has a clear understanding of it. If I am the only possessor of that knowledge, other hon. Members should be concerned about sending the Bill to the Lords. On Second Reading, I did not want to give hon. Members a tutorial on the finances of the authority because I had more important things to say about the Bill, but I can give a simple answer now.
The Tees and Hartlepool port authority and the Cleveland development corporation got together and wondered how to make legitimate the investment that they were discussing. The Clevement development corporation could not invest in a Government agency, so it set up a company, the Hartlepool Renaissance Company. Because it is a separate company, although with the same personnel, the Tees and Hartlepool port authority was able to give it shares to the value of the land on which the marina was being built. That is known as a convertible share arrangement. That is possibly one of the more sensible things that the authority has done.
We should be concerned not only about letting the Lords have this Bill, but about making it more widely known among hon. Members who will vote on the motion
248
tonight that in Committee the evidence showed that the port authority, which is wanting to spread its wings and speculate on investment schemes throughout the world, has a poor record on investment. It has touched nothing that marks it out as an expert in finance, high investment or entrepreneurial ventures. It has played with tiddlywinks and lost its money but claimed that it went on a rescue operation. It has no backing to support its dreams of economic voyaging around the world. Indeed, counsel referred to it as having dreams——
Mr. Worthington: Are the provisions in the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill similar to those in the Clyde Port Authority Bill, in that the members of the authority—about whom my hon. Friend has spoken scathingly—can become dominant members of the privatised company? Is there an open way in which other people can become the dominant members of that company?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has done so well, so far, in keeping to the revival motion. He is wise enough to know that he must not go down the road suggested by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
Mr. Leadbitter: Perhaps I will follow my hon. Friend's remarks, so I must work out how to weave that into the procedural requirements. If I succeed, I shall be congratulated; if I do not, I shall be shot down. Either way, it will be quite a thrill coming from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to weave it in, but not in a naughty way.
I have already given good reasons why the Bill should not go to another place—for example, the use of the Chairman's casting vote, the powers that already exist under present legislation, and the judicial responses of members of the Committee, who had been subject to a £500,000 national publicity campaign that they could not avoid seeing. There is another reason, which is both intriguing and fascinating. Surely it is not the will of the House, or of any hon. Member, freely to give a windfall to a handful of people. The only way that that could happen would be if the payroll vote were told not to take any notice of people like me, and to vote in a particular way.
Under the Bill, the proposed structure will mean that control of the holding company will fall into the hands of a consortium, which was not named or identified in any way during evidence to the Committee. However, we know that the largest shareholding will have control. I come now to the intriguing aspect. When the sale takes place, the Government will take 50 per cent. of the proceeds, and 50 per cent. will remain. Let us say that 50 per cent. is in the bank. The consortium than takes control and so takes back that 50 per cent., and it also has the port—what a rip-off! I have done it, Madam Deputy Speaker. You told me not to discuss that unless I could keep within our procedure. I found a way to do that, so I should be congratulated.
The House should not allow the Bill to go to another place, because of the reasons that I have given. I have explained what is happening, and that cannot be rebutted. Mr. Hackney agreed that that was happening. A group of people will get control. They have paid for that through the shares, but they will get back their money because they

249
will have 50 per cent. of the sale proceeds, and they will have the port as well. In my language, that is highway robbery.
Mr. Harry Barnes: In Committee, Mr. Hackney accepted the term "double your money". They will get the money and the port.
Mr. Leadbitter: Hon. Members might be persuaded to vote against the motion if they but knew about certain actions during the month of October. It was a month of letters, press releases and general hanky-panky by the port authority. Hon. Members might be surprised to learn that I received a letter from the authority's secretary, and it was that letter which caused me to feel so strongly that we should not allow the Bill to go to another place. It was the most downright disgraceful, ill-tempered, ill-advised and imprudent letter that I have received in 43 years of public life. I contacted the authority's chief executive, but he said that he knew nothing about it. He spoke to the secretary and he also looked at copies of the correspondence. Within half an hour, he told me that he was not prepared to accept that sort of language from the secretary, that the letter would be withdrawn, and that I would receive the necessary apologies. That shows that not only are the procedural requirements of the House important, but they must not be impinged upon by conduct which motivates people to go in one direction or another.
Because of the courtesy of the chief executive, I gave an undertaking that I would not reveal what was in the letter and I am keeping faith with that, but the House should be aware of the kind of treatment I received for taking part in an important debate on an important issue.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is noble in giving a commitment not to reveal the contents of that letter. As a distinguished Member of Parliament, who serves on the Chairmen's panel, does he think that there was a breach of parliamentary privilege in a letter being written to a Member of Parliament about comments made in the House? Is not Mr. Wellington, the secretary of the port authority, fortunate not to have been called to the Bar of the House to explain his conduct?
Mr. Leadbitter: I thought seriously about that at the time. I have a certain weakness—I do not know how I came to have it—but although I can hit hard, I find that when I have my opponent in a corner I feel some compassion. The Chair gave me the freedom to relate that story, and I think that the House had the right to hear it. However, as I told the chief executive of the authority, I accept that the authority's secretary must know his job. Therefore, the letter must have been written in what I would call a state of unfortunate exuberance. In other words, I was far kinder to him that he was to me.
I referred to October as being the month of letters and press releases. Unfortunately, there is another reason why the Bill should not go to the other place. Those letters and press releases represent—in writing—lying, deceiving, practically the worst form of blackmail and obnoxious manners that should not be tolerated by people charged with the responsibility of dealing with serious public affairs. There must be certain standards.
The vote of hon. Members tonight is important. The Bill has taken a year to reach this stage and we now come to the final fence. It is important the House should consider that final hurdle. Yet Hartlepool borough council
250
and Cleveland county council received a letter dated 26 October making it clear that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority would let the planning committee of those two authorities have land in order to build a carriageway from the Middleton pier in Hartlepool to the dual carriageway.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will come back to the procedural motion.
Mr. Leadbitter: I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members knew of that suggestion they just might, on balance, vote against the Bill tonight. That letter laid down a condition. The petitioners, an interested body of people, said that they would let the local authorities have the land on the condition that they withdrew their opposition to the Bill. How is that as a way of dealing with public affairs? That offended both councils who then got in touch with the Member of Parliament dealing with the opposition to the Bill to express their concern at being forced to do something by the promise of land being conditional upon their withdrawing their opposition.
That is hypocritical, because I have already related how the Tees and Hartlepool port authority has shares in the marina and so is of that development. It is in its own interests to have the linkage and yet it tells the two local authorities that it will be hard. I have got news for it. I have just informed the authorities that since it is in the interests of the marine development to have the road link, it must forget about being a hard seller, it is an anxious seller and must offer the least price that it can get away with.
How the Bill could have been a public Bill if the 50 per cent. levy had been written into it has already been dealt with. In other words, the Bill would not be a private Bill. It would not exist. It would have to come with the enabling legislation. The interesting thing is that the port authority has made it known that it won 50 per cent. of the proceeds. That is the first time we have ever learnt from serious men that if someone take away 50 per cent. what is left is a gain. That is nonsense. It is not true because, in evidence to the Committee, the council made it clear that that 50 per cent. was not even known to the authority when it deposited the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, to use his own words, is now being naughty, although he promised that he would not be. He has been ingenious in debating the revival motion and I am sure that he will now stay with the procedure and not with the subject matter.
Mr. Leadbitter: The Chair will be concerned with our reasons for opposing the revival motion and, I hope, with nothing else. I appreciate that I must not deviate from the main stream of your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know how long I could pursue that theme without being caught.
I turn now to what is known as the essential principle of the Bill. It must be approached with care, because there is some misconception about the nature of the Bill itself. The promoters submit that the result will be a free and independent port—no more, no less. However, the council might with ease gain from the promoter of the Bill—in the guise of the chief executive, Mr. Hackney—an admission that the purpose of the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority Act 1966, which followed the Rochdale report, was to achieve a port which was independent, autonomous

251
and financially self-supporting. Therefore, the claim that the new Bill will confer freedom and independence on the port cannot be true.
If the Bill before the House is enacted, the port authority will disband and reform as a trust. It will then create a holding company, but the port itself will be a subsidiary. The port authority will cease to be independent, autonomous, and self-financing. We argue that the Bill should not go to another place because it would be doing so under false pretences.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member intends to continue speaking—there is no reason why he should not—I trust that he will not deploy arguments relating to the purpose of the Bill. With his long-standing experience as a parliamentarian, the hon. Member will be familiar with the limits of a procedural motion. He said that he was at the beginning of his speech.
Mr. Leadbitter: The Deputy Speaker who immediately preceded you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, read a ruling, which I confirmed by scanning "Erskine May". I discovered that we were both correct in our interpretation of the wording. The Chair rules that debate must be confined to the revival motion—and, as I agree, there is no conflict between us so far. However, I have tried very hard, and somewhat ingeniously, to argue why the Bill should not go to another place. Hon. Members such as I who behave with cultivated innocence should attempt not to be repetitious. That is a bonus that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have enjoyed as a consequence of the persuasion that you have employed. I, at least, have not been repetitious.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been repetitious in that he has repeated Second Reading arguments.
Mr. Leadbitter: That is right—and the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do that, because we are in the business of seeking support, which is the function of an Opposition. We must seek support not only from the Conservative Benches, but from the Chair.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned the group that had been involved in setting up a project in Hartlepool. Perhaps that project is similar to one involving the Clyde port authority which is trying to develop the Braehead site. This strikes me as jumping the gun—as retrospective legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving into areas that I have just forbidden.
Mr. Leadbitter: Diplomacy must operate here—I cannot demonstrate outwardly that I agree with my hon. Friend, because I do not wish to offend the Chair, but I do not want to comply with the Chair to such an extent as to offend my hon. Friend. In the circumstances, I may have to escape the consequences by sitting down.
In the light of the weaknesses of the Bill, the House must make a real attempt not to let it proceed to the Lords. The House must, in such circumstances, always be satisfied that the evidence is so overwhelming that it is unreasonable to stop the progress of a measure. Is the House satisfied that that is the case? If hon. Member
252
sallow the Bill to proceed to the House of Lords today, they will be ignoring the fact that the promoters did not produce one expert witness in the Committee hearings. Does the House intend to allow the Bill to proceed today, knowing full well—this is not merely the due of the hon. Member for Hartlepool—that in Committee the port authority chairman was given statutory authority by the Secretary of State to communicate with him on all matters of importance regarding the port? Yet the chairman himself did not make a single appearance before the Committee.
The position is certainly rather odd. It is clear that, under the present legislation, the port is independent, autonomous and financially self-supporting. It is also important to note that all its activities are for the port, within the port, and that it is free to invest. The corollary, however, is that although its welfare and interests are matters solely for the port, the Bill places it in a secondary position in, as it were, a "group" concept. It appears that the House must now allow the Bill to proceed without taking that into account. I have emphasised the desirability of establishing a subsidiary company, with the new authority as a holding company, but under the Bill the priorities of the port will become secondary to the targeting of investment bringing short-term high-profitability returns, as opposed to long-term, low-return investments in the port itself.
That is why, as we see from page 1 of the report of the sixth hearing of evidence to the Committee, counsel for the promoters said that the condition in section 12(1) of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966 about keeping the port safe and commodious—as it was before the passing of earlier legislation—was a constraint on the port authority. If it is a constraint on the port authority, then before the Bill be sent to the other place we must heed the clear message that money will not be spent on it.
Meanwhile, container investment in the authority is non-existent, although to enable it to compete with other ports, taking account of proposed installations, would require expenditure of between £60 million and £80 million. In other words, the £20 million now in reserve could be a first step to meeting the competition that will arise from 1992——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, and any other hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye, that the House earlier passed the Bill to the other place. Tonight we are determining whether to pass the procedural motion.
Mr. Leadbitter: I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to halt that motion and stop the measure going to the other place.
It should be clear from what I have said and from the deliberations in Committee that only a handful of people—fewer than five—were instrumental in allowing the Bill to continue on its journey. But I fear that the House has not heeded the warnings given by my hon. Friends and me, even though an enabling measure could have done the job for free. From that point of view, we are witnessing idiocy and imprudence at its peak. The port authority consulted nobody, not even the county, until the Bill was deposited. I have been associated with the port for more than 25 years. I was a chief policy witness prior to the earlier

253
legislation being passed. Despite that, and despite all the knowledge of the issue that I possess, I received not one offer of consultation from the authority.
I feel extremely strongly for the people whom I represent. I know their real worth and I am well aware of the magnificence of the work force and of managements throughout the northern region. I would be foolish to lose any opportunity—because I have been so disappointed with the authority—to voice my views. Having done so, I now say to the authority, as I would say to any other authority, that if the Bill has the misfortune to become law, I shall try to make it work.
9.17 pm
Mr. Tony Worthington: Our concern tonight is simply whether to breathe life into the Bill and thereby revive it. In considering that, we must take note of certain incidents that should make us think again about the whole issue.
We have been misled, wittingly or unwittingly, about the Clyde Port Authority Bill and the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill. Indeed, the Clyde port authority was misled, having been told by the Government that the only way it could he privatised was by promoting private legislation. I assume that the Tees and Hartlepool port authority received the same advice.
We were shocked to discover in the Queen's Speech a proposal to privatise all the trust ports. It would be foolhardy to privatise two trust ports when a Government Bill will privatise the other trust ports. We have no knowledge of the contents of that Bill, and the Minister may not know under what terms the other trust ports will be privatised.
The interests of the Government in promoting a Bill to privatise the trust ports are different from the interests of a port authority in promoting a private Bill. That was made clear in proceedings on the port authority Bills. The Government suddenly realised that, under the private Bills, a group of people who had not put a penny into the trust ports would be able to decide the future ownership of those ports and considerably influence who benefited from it. They realised that that would not be in order and belatedly said, "We shall impose a 50 per cent. levy," to ensure that they received some of the proceedings of the sale.
We are considering the motion only because the Clyde and Tees and Hartlepool port authorities have moved quicker than other trust ports. It will be interesting to see whether the Government accept the terms of the port authority Bills. It would be extraordinary if they accepted the same propositions as the port authorities. A number of people were appointed to the port authorities to be custodians of the public interest for a limited period—for example, as the chair of the Clyde port authority on a salary of £10,000 a year or as a port authority member on a salary of £3,500 a year—but under the private Bills they will be able to decide how the future wealth of the authorities is distributed. I am not implying that they will benefit from the distribution of wealth, but they will be able to decide who benefits from that distribution.
Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman know who is in that position at present, and is it not true that those who run the authorities can award themselves whatever salaries
254
they like and no one has any control over that? Once the port authority is a public limited company, shareholders and others will not have that stricture.
Mr. Worthington: That is a helpful intervention, because it shows that we have considered the port authority Bills completely the wrong way round. There would be general agreement among hon. Members that the structure of port authorities is thoroughly inadequate because there is no accountability. There is a strange procedure in Scotland whereby the Department of Transport—God love it—and not the Secretary of State for Scotland, appoints the members of the trust authority. There seems no logic in the fact that a remote, London-based body plucks out 10 or a dozen people to run the port authority. Does that body exercise any scrutiny over the activities of the port authority? No, it does not.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport and received a reply from the Ministesr in which he said that there was no monitoring of the work of the port authority. In other words, we take no interest in whether it does a good or a bad job. The authorities are simply appointed and they get on with the work. There is no scrutiny of or interest in how they fulfil the task, so we have no idea whether the Tees and Hartlepool port authority or the Clyde port authority is efficient. Neither the Government nor anyone else asks whether the authorities do a good job.
Is there a need for legislation? It seems that the present structure of the port authorities is inefficient, and I suspect that the Minister agrees. A proper analysis of the way in which the port authorities have developed should have been carried out to obtain an appraisal of what was going right and what was going wrong. I believe that the Clyde port authority could have been massively improved. I also believe that it was unacceptable that the authority was neither a democratic nor a private body. It was not accountable to anyone, which led to the incredible statement by the director of the authority, which is engraved on my mind for ever, that
"above the Clyde port authority there is God."
That is strangely pompous, but it is also strangely true. Nobody can call the Clyde port authority to account. It could perform its task efficiently or inefficiently year in and year out.
One would have thought that the first action of a responsible Government who were confronted either with their own legislation or with private legislation would have been to appraise whether the present structure was working correctly.
Mr. Holt: If the trust ports were such an eyesore, why did no Labour Government have the courage to do anything about them?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) will deal with the motion.
Mr. Worthington: I am grateful both to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), whose intervention is relevant in considering whether to breathe life into the Clyde Port Authority Bill and into the others. I did not say that the port authorities were an eyesore, although a major eyesore in my constituency is under the control of the Clyde port authority. I was saying that no hon. Member has ever

255
carried out research into how the port authorities work and into whether they are working efficiently or inefficiently.
The contentious issue is whether the authorities powers are restricted so that they cannot undertake activities that would make them efficient. That has never been appraised by anyone except the ports authorities, which have a vested interest.
This is a fundamentally inadequate way to proceed with legislation. During the passage of the Clyde Port Authority Bill, there has been no analysis of whether we need legislation or what form of legislation we need. It will be sad for hon. Members who represent constituencies in the area of the Clyde port authority and of the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to know that a far better analysis of the role of the other trust ports will be undertaken through the presentation of a public Bill. Ministers will come to the House having been fully briefed by the Department of Transport, and they will be able to argue their case properly.
With the Clyde Port Authority Bill, we did not have those advantages. We had a private Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has shown the extent of his interest in the Bill by his absence tonight.[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Langbaurgh wish to intervene?
Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman is attacking a man who has been made a Minister and who cannot be here for that reason. That is most unparliamentary.
Mr. Worthington: It so happens that the hon. Member for Eastwood has been made the Minister responsible for industry and employment in Scotland and the Bill is of significance to the development of Scotland. That the hon. Gentleman should have taken his interest in promoting the Bill outside the House and put other interests—
Mr. Holt: Cheap.
Mr. Worthington: All right: I shall not withdraw my remarks, because I think they are justified, but I shall take the House back to the Second Reading debate which took place while the hon. Gentleman was but a Back Bencher.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Second Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we are debating a revival motion, and I should like to hear arguments about whether the Bill should be passed to another place.
Mr. Worthington: I do not think that the Bill should be revived, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the House has never had the opportunity—on Second Reading, tonight or at any other stage—to consider its merits. The sponsor of the Bill, who now happens to be a Minister—I hope that he will prepare himself better in his new job—came to the House without knowing anything about the Bill and could not answer any of our questions. One of the central questions on the Bill, to which we really ought to be given an answer, concerns the identity of those who will be able to control the port authority in future.
Just to show the confusion that there was on Second Reading—a confusion which persists tonight—let me remind the House that, at that time, the sponsor of the Bill
256
was talking in terms of the flotation of a public company. Only at a later stage did we find that the authority was to be floated not as a public but as a private company.
Mr. Bell: Is it not a fact that Mr. John Hackney has not been able to reconcile himself with Mr. Charles Wellington, the chief of Hartlepool, and that we do not know whether there will be a stock market flotation or not?
Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend confirms the lack of certainty about who will be able to control the company in future. I have heard from the authority that some of the shares will go to the work force. We do not know what proportion it will be, although Opposition Members accept that there should be some employee share ownership. We do not know who else will control the company in future. We have heard only that some of the shares are likely to go to local institutions and organisations. As a local institution myself, I fully intend to apply for shares. I shall write to the company and say, "As a local institution—the MP for Clydebank and Milngavie—I should like shares in the Clyde port authority." I hasten to say to my hon. Friends that I have no intention of profiting from the shares: any profit will be given to local charities.
I shall be interested to hear the authority's response when I write to it to say that, out of interest in the future of the port and the river, I should like to be on the inside of the company. I wonder whether I shall be given the chance. Some of my hon. Friends may also wish to buy shares, although I shall not tonight commit them to doing so.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Whatever the share arrangement, we have some indication of what has been ruled out. On the Tees and Hartlepool Bill, on the Chairman's casting vote, the proposal that 50 per cent. of voting shares should go to the workers was defeated. Also, a proposal that the majority of the shares should go to the employees' pension fund and port users combined was defeated.
Mr. Worthington: That is why we should not breathe life into the Bill. What rules are the Bills setting up for the distribution of shares? We know nothing, and have been told nothing, about that basic issue. It would be a dereliction of duty to let the Bills go any further without clarification of that issue. I hope that that issue will be directly addressed in the Government's Bill.
With a normal privatisation, the Government lay down the terms under which the privatisation is to occur. They will say, for example, as they did with the electricity privatisation, "We are issuing shares at so much per share." Everybody gets a chance to bid for the shares. But that has not happened in this case. With the Government's Bill, it will be interesting to see whether they give fair access to the purchase of shares for any of the other trust ports or whether they will give privileged access to those who are already on the inside because they are members of the port authority.
Another major issue which has never been fully explored, and which is another reason why we should not breathe life into the Bill or revive it, is the valuation of the company's assets. The port authority has to set up the conditions in which the Clyde port authority will be sold to an institution. It must decide how it will realise the assets that I previously thought were public assets, but

257
apparently it is a difficult situation, in which there is no real owner, and something that I thought was public is to be turned into a private asset.
To sell off the assets of the port authority, they must first be valued by the port authority. Therefore, a firm, which I hope will be independent, will have to be hired to decide what value to put on the assets of the port authority. There may be talk of that firm being independent. However, if I wish to sell a property and I hire someone to value it for me, the valuer will assess that property on my behalf knowing that I am the seller of the property. Obviously, his duty is to me—I have hired him. His duty is to put the maximum possible value on the property. If I wish to buy property, I will hire professional advice from someone who will tell me the cheapest price for which I could get the assets and the lowest price that I should bid for them.
Under the Bill, the buyer and the seller are the same body. The Clyde port authority is liquidating itself, seeking to sell its assets and setting up a new company. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) eloquently said, initially the only members of the new company will be the Clyde port authority board members, because they will have liquidated themselves as a port authority and reconstituted themselves as the new trust and then as the new company. Who is to carry out a valuation when the buyer and the seller are the same? That issue has never been explored in the House, but it is another reason why we should hesitate to breathe life into these Bills. The issues have never been fully explained.
Other issues did not receive an airing until my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke earlier. We are also talking about navigation rights, not simply about property on the banks of the river. We are talking about the maintenance of good conditions for sailing up and down, not only the Clyde, but as far as halfway down Arran and all the surrounding sea lochs. We are talking about the public good. My hon. Friend reminded us of the recent tragic accident caused by submarines using the same channel as fishing boats. Clearly the public good must be at the forefront of our minds.
There are many other important issues. We have not even mentioned dredging tonight because we did not want to go back over the Second Reading debate. However, we have given abundant reasons why it would be prudent for the House not to breathe life into these Bills. I hope that the forthcoming public Bill will deal with these issues much more sensibly and will have the public interest more at heart, and that we shall not proceed with these private Bills.
9.41 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: It has been said that this is only a procedural motion, with the implication that it is therefore of less significance than the substantive issues. However, as trade unionists among my hon. Friends know, procedural agreements can often be more important than substantive agreements. Sometimes in trade union negotiations on wages, an employer will try to give a good substantive agreement, but part of the terms include selling out the procedural arrangements. Therefore, procedure is important because it is by that process that legislation proceeds.
258
Hon. Members have referred only briefly to the fact that the motion deals with a number of other Bills apart from the port authority Bills. The motion refers also to the London Underground (Victoria) Bill and to the Shard Bridge Bill. Those may well be reasonable and honourable Bills, and they may well deserve to proceed—I do not know, because I have not investigated them and I have not read the Committee reports. Furthermore, I have heard nothing today to tell me why those two Bills, together with the port authority Bills, should proceed. It would have been procedurally sensible to have a different motion which would have allowed some division and separate debates on some of the Bills. The major elements in our discussions on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Clyde Port Authority Bill could perhaps have gone together because many of the principles arising from them are the same.
It is because the motion relates to the port authority Bills and because they are obnoxious in nature that we should not pass it. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to go into detail about those obnoxious provisions, so I simply direct hon. Members to the Committee reports and to our earlier debates in which they were spelt out in considerable detail.
I also oppose the motion insofar as it relates to the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, of which i have some knowledge because I served on the Committee dealing with it, because that Bill has already had its chance. Unless I hear some special reason today as to why we should pass the revival motion—I prefer to call it a Lazarus motion, as it brings the Bill back from the dead to pass it on to the Lords—I do not see why we should do so. No Conservative Member has sought to argue the merits of the procedure in which we are engaged. It has been said that as it is only procedure we should let it slip through, out of courtesy to the House of Lords. However, we are here not for purposes of courtesy but for serious investigation of legislation.
The THPA Bill has had its chance. It was deposited in the House on 27 November last year and went to Committee on 15 May. There were seven Committee meetings up to 6 June and a disastrous decision was made in Committee, with the Chairman's casting vote, that Committee members would not visit Tees and Hartlepool to see what they were talking about and meet the community in the district. That procedural nonsense led to two Labour Committee members walking out and insisting that the visit should take place. They were not seeking to hold up the Committee's procedures, but were concerned that they should do their duty before making their final decision. It took seven weeks for that trip to be organised and the day after it took place the matter went back to Committee, on 25 July. If the decision taken in Committee had been to allow the visit to stand, it would have done so the week following 6 June, there would have been substantially more time in which to deal with the measure and pass it to the Lords, and we could have made progress by now.
The Bill's statute of limitations has run out and we should not seek to revive it. It has been said that the Bill has been superseded by a measure in the Queen's Speech, which I believe is one of the most important provisions. The Tees and Hartlepool Bill, and the trouble that it caused, might have been one of the factors which led the

259
Government to decide to include the other measure in the Queen's Speech. Having been included in the Queen's Speech, that provision should have superseded the Bill.
We need to sort out trusts. There has been a statement in the House today, and we are establishing a new range of trusts related to the national health service. It was said that Hospitals would not opt out but that trusts would operate—but who can trust the trusts when they operate like those at Clyde and at Tees and Hartlepool have done and seek their own privatisation provisions in future. It seems that that pattern is likely to follow in the health service.
We should reject the measure above all because it is a Government Bill in all but name, behind which lie all sorts of Government involvement and manipulation. That has come from the Department of Transport, which encouraged the trust authorities of Clyde, and of Hartlepool and Tees to bring the measure forward. When the authorities failed to advance at sufficient speed, pressure was brought to ensure decisions which were carried on casting votes. The Government took over the measure when they realised that the other trust port provisions in this country would result in long-drawn-out processes. It is therefore most important that we should reject the motion.
9.47 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: In speaking against the revival motion, I should say that not one Member of Parliament from the banks of the River Clyde supports the privatisation of the Clyde port authority or has spoken in favour of it. I am deeply disappointed that the Bill's sponsor is not here to listen to some of the arguments put to stop the Bill going to the Lords.
It is appalling that the work force in the Clyde port authority is not to have control of the livelihood of its members. That matter should have been included in the Bill. Only last week, some of my constituents asked me what would happen to the profit from the sale of land that they had thought, for years and years, belonged to the public—the people of Renfrew, Glasgow and Inverclyde. Land that has belonged to the people of our areas is disappearing. This Bill is another rip-off; it is a disastrous step, which will lead to the shabby treatment of the Clyde. It will lead to the same sort of disasters as have happened along the banks of the Thames in London. We do not want that in Scotland. The River Clyde could and should be one of the most beautiful rivers in the country.
This is not the way forward for the people of the River Clyde and of Scotland. Time is not on my side, so I cannot say all that I should have liked to say against the revival motion. We are doing a disservice to the members of the public who fought for years to make the Clyde renowned. We have seen the demise of shipbuilding there, but I hope that the river can be cleared up and put to better use. Whether we like it or not, the Clyde port authority is one of the major landowners on the Clyde and the greedy vultures are ready to descend, eager to take its huge assets into private hands. I hope that the Minister has listened to those points.
9.50 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: The outstanding feature of the debate has been the fact that we have not heard a solitary speech by a Conservative Member in support of any of these measures having fresh life breathed into them. We heard briefly from the Minister, although not as briefly as he had intended, but apart from that there has been nothing but the silence of the grave. Tory Members know that they can sit back and the work will be done for them by other forces.
Throughout most of the debate none of the sponsors of these Bills has been present, although two of them now are. It is particularly fascinating to wonder who the sponsor of the Clyde Port Authority Bill will be. In its first existence, its sponsor was the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who has been exalted to great heights recently. Such is his commitment to the future of the Clyde port, such is his genuine interest in the matter—he has been trying to put the Bill through the House for a year—such is his enthusiasm for the benefits to come to the industry of Scotland, for which he now has ministerial responsibility, and such is his sincerity that I understand that throughout these proceedings he has been in the Strangers Dining Room.
That shows what a con the Bills are. Little private vested interests controlled by people with an eye on the main chance nobble a Member and say, "Look pal, you put the Bill through for us, and once the arrangements have been made, who knows what will come out the other end?" The hon. Member for Eastwood has found his advancement in another form, so we wonder who will take the Bill forward. Will it be the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), or will it perhaps be the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)? After that we begin to run out of Scottish Tory Members—the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) is a decent cove who would have nothing to do with the business. Who else is there? That is probably the greatest decision that the Clyde port authority has had to take for some time: to whom to pass the baton to take the Bill through the House?
We have heard much about the port authorities on many nights similar to this, and fortunately, due to the efforts of Opposition Members, the private Bills have not yet gone through. We assure Conservative Members that we shall continue to mount as much opposition as possible.
I happen to know a wee bit about the Shard Bridge Bill. Many hon. Members may wonder what the Shard Bridge Bill is and may reasonably wonder what I know about it. I know about it because I was appointed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills. I understand that people are paid large amounts to present Bills and to turn up and confront the members of such Committees. Like the three wise monkeys, the members of the Committee are supposed to nod the Bills through. We nodded through some fairly major Bills and then the Shard Bridge Bill came up. I asked what it was all about and I also asked what Shard was all about. I found that the Shard bridge is a toll bridge in the north-west of England. I also found that the purpose of the Bill was to increase the share capital of the Shard Bridge Company, which is doubtless owned by the great and good of Shard and the surrounding precincts.
Mr. Richard Holt 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 113, Noes 43.

Division No. 18]

[9.55 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Kennedy, Charles

Alexander, Richard

Kilfedder, James

Amos, Alan

Kirkhope, Timothy

Arbuthnot, James

Knapman, Roger

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Knowles, Michael

Ashby, David

Lawrence, Ivan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Batiste, Spencer

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Lightbown, David

Beggs, Roy

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Beith, A. J.

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Major, Rt Hon John

Benyon, W.

Marland, Paul

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Maude, Hon Francis

Boswell, Tim

Miller, Sir Hal

Bottomley, Peter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Bowis, John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Bright, Graham

Monro, Sir Hector

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Morrison, Sir Charles

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

Moss, Malcolm

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Neubert, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Nicholls, Patrick

Burt, Alistair

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Butcher, John

Paice, James

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Patnick, Irvine

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Carrington, Matthew

Riddick, Graham

Cash, William

Ryder, Richard

Chapman, Sydney

Sackville, Hon Tom

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Colvin, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Sims, Roger

Cope, Rt Hon John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

Squire, Robin

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Stern, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Stevens, Lewis

Fallon, Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Summerson, Hugo

Fookes, Dame Janet

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Forth, Eric

Thorne, Neil

Fox, Sir Marcus

Trippier, David

Franks, Cecil

Trotter, Neville

Freeman, Roger

Twinn, Dr Ian

Gale, Roger

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Gill, Christopher

Waller, Gary

Goodlad, Alastair

Warren, Kenneth

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Watts, John

Hague, William

Wheeler, Sir John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Widdecombe, Ann

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

Wood, Timothy

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Holt, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Mr. Peter Thurnham and Mr. Tony Durant.

Irvine, Michael

Janman, Tim

NOES

Adams, Mrs. Katherine

Cryer, Bob

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dalyell, Tam

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

Dixon, Don

Buckley, George J.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Callaghan, Jim

Eastham, Ken

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Flynn, Paul

Canavan, Dennis

Foster, Derek

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Clelland, David

Graham, Thomas

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Haynes, Frank

Cousins, Jim

Henderson, Doug

262

Hood, Jimmy

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Vaz, Keith

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Walley, Joan

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Leadbitter, Ted

Wilson, Brian

Lewis, Terry

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Worthington, Tony

McMaster, Gordon

Wray, Jimmy

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Nellist, Dave

Tellers for the Noes:

Pike, Peter L.

Mr. Stuart Bell and Mr. Harry Barnes.

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly:—
The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 44.

Division No. 19]

[10.08 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Irvine, Michael

Amess, David

Janman, Tim

Amos, Alan

Kilfedder, James

Arbuthnot, James

Kirkhope, Timothy

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Knapman, Roger

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Ashby, David

Knowles, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Lawrence, Ivan

Batiste, Spencer

Lee, John (Pendle)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Beggs, Roy

Lightbown, David

Beith, A. J.

McLoughlin, Patrick

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Major, Rt Hon John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Maude, Hon Francis

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Miller, Sir Hal

Boswell, Tim

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Bottomley, Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Bowis, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Bright, Graham

Morrison, Sir Charles

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Moss, Malcolm

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

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Paice, James

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Patnick, Irvine

Burt, Alistair

Porter, David (Waveney)

Butcher, John

Riddick, Graham

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ryder, Richard

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Carrington, Matthew

Shaw, David (Dover)

Cash, William

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Chapman, Sydney

Sims, Roger

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Cope, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

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

Stern, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Stevens, Lewis

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Durant, Tony

Summerson, Hugo

Fallon, Michael

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Favell, Tony

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Fookes, Dame Janet

Thorne, Neil

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Trotter, Neville

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Forth, Eric

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Waller, Gary

Franks, Cecil

Warren, Kenneth

Freeman, Roger

Watts, John

Fry, Peter

Wheeler, Sir John

Gale, Roger

Widdecombe, Ann

Goodlad, Alastair

Wood, Timothy

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Hague, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Mr. Peter Thurnham and Mr. Christopher Gill.

Holt, Richard

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

NOES

Adams, Mrs. Katherine

Bell, Stuart

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

263

Buckley, George J.

Leadbitter, Ted

Callaghan, Jim

Loyden, Eddie

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

McFall, John

Canavan, Dennis

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

McMaster, Gordon

Clelland, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Maxton, John

Cousins, Jim

Nellist, Dave

Cryer, Bob

Pike, Peter L.

Dalyell, Tarn

Skinner, Dennis

Dixon, Don

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Vaz, Keith

Eastham, Ken

Walley, Joan

Flynn, Paul

Wareing, Robert N.

Foster, Derek

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Wilson, Brian

Graham, Thomas

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Haynes, Frank

Wray, Jimmy

Henderson, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Tellers for the Noes:

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Terry Lewis.

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [12 November] as relates to the Clyde Port Authority Bill, the London Underground (Victoria) Bill, the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill and the Shard Bridge Bill be now considered.
The House accordingly proceeded to consider so much of the said Message.
Ordered,
That the promoters of the Bills may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bills, in the present Session; and the Petitions for the Bills shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bills shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be deposited with each 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 last Session;
That each Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Overseas Government Debts
10.19 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That the draft Debts of Overseas Governments (Determination of Relevant Percentage) Regulations 1990, which were laid before the House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The regulations form part of the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on Budget day, which were discussed thoroughly during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. The proposals introduced some changes to the tax treatment of doubtful sovereign debt; they are now contained in the Finance Act 1990.
Tax law allows relief for doubtful debt up to the amount estimated to be bad. While that works reasonably well for most debt, it proved very difficult to make accurate estimates of the amount of sovereign debt that will not be repaid, and large changes in estimates can have a significant effect on Exchequer receipts. As a result, we introduced some changes.
The new system preserves the principles on which tax relief is based, but will give greater certainty about tax deductions, and phases the cost of large changes to the Exchequer. It lays down rules—contained in the regulations—for calculating the maximum amount of debt eligible for relief, and sets some limit to the amount of relief allowable in any one year.
The regulations set the rules for measuring the extent to which a particular debt is irrecoverable. More specifically, they set the relevant percentage that is the maximum amount that can be allowed as a deduction for tax purposes. Each debt will be measured against the factors set out in schedule 1 of the regulations. Scores will be allocated, and the total score will be converted to give the maximum percentage of debt allowable as a deduction.
The regulations are broadly similar to the Bank of England's guidelines to banks on what provisions they should make on prudential grounds. Those guidelines are known as the matrix. One of the ways in which the regulations differ from that matrix is their exclusion of one of the more subjective factors, which requires an assessment of a country's present and future economic and political conditions. They set a definite percentage of debt that is tax-deductible, whereas the Bank of England matrix provides bands within which provisions for a country might be expected.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does not the presence of a Treasury Minister demonstrate the scale of the problem? Should not an Overseas Development Minister be dealing with the debate? Does not that show that the Treasury is the prime motivator behind policy in this important area, rather than Foreign Office Ministers—particularly the Minister for Overseas Development?
Charities and other outside bodies interested in overseas development have alleged that the Treasury is interfering, and is preventing Government from making the right decisions and adopting the right approach. Does not the presence at the Dispatch Box of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury prove their case conclusively?
Mr. Maude: It would be rather eccentric for a Minister other than a Treasury Minister to come to the House of Commons to introduce Inland Revenue regulations.
The Inland Revenue published the regulations for consultation, and we have accommodated most of the helpful and constructive comments that we received. The draft version that we are debating tonight forms an integral part of the changes that we have introduced to the tax treatment of doubtful sovereign debt. The regulations will, I believe, bring welcome certainty to what has been a very uncertain area of tax law.
10.23 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: That was an unusually brief ministerial introduction.
The current debt crisis is clearly devastating. In the words of Luis da Silva, a prominent Brazilian trade unionist,
"The Third World War has begun. A quiet war that is destroying Brazil, Latin America, and nearly the whole of the Third World. Instead of soldiers, it is the children who are dying. Instead of the wounded, there are millions of unemployed and the old. Instead of broken bridges, we see broken factories, schools, hospitals and whole economies…This war uses debts and interest as its most important weapon, and it is a more deadly weapon than the atom bomb."
Lula, as Luis da Silva is known in Brazil, and the children, the unemployed, the sick and the mothers struggling to cope have not been invited to the debate tonight. They are not able to contribute, but their lives are affected by the numbers and percentages that we are discussing.
Perhaps, in the view of Conservative Members, we are talking only about relevant percentages as a basis for granting tax relief on bad debts owed to Britain's commercial banks. We believe that we are talking about debt relief or, more specifically, the lack of it and the fact that millions of people are suffering unemployment, ill health and plummeting living standards because their Governments are handing over their nations' wealth to creditors.
In this debate, the creditors under consideration are the commercial banks. But I hope that we shall on future occasions debate the debts owed to Governments too. But of all the major actors in the debt crisis, the banks bear the greatest responsibility and have suffered least. At present, the Third world owes $338 billion to the commercial banks. United Kingdom banks have the third largest share, after the United States and Japan. Last year alone, commercial banks worldwide received $20 billion more from poor countries than they gave in new loans.
The effect of that transfusion from south to north has been a roll-back of development in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia. Decades of progress have been undone. Income has fallen back to the levels of the mid-1970s in real terms. As Governments spend more and more on servicing the debt, the percentage of their budgets spent on health has fallen on average by a half in Latin America and the Caribbean. Infant mortality and malnutrition have risen alarmingly.
I cite as an example the Philippines and the debts incurred during the Marcos era. Debt servicing grew from 11 per cent. of the Government budget in 1980 to 46 per cent. in 1986—the same percentage of the budget that the British Government allocated that year to our defence, education, social security, welfare and housing.
266
As debt servicing soared, spending on social services in the Philippines sank by more than a third in real terms. Not surprisingly, by 1985 the percentage of families living in poverty in the Philippines had risen to 59 per cent. and real incomes were back to their 1975 levels. A quarter of all children in that agricultural land are now malnourished. As half the population are children, the on-going austerity, poverty and malnutrition will have enormous implications for future generations.
With Latin America dependent on exports of primary commodities for three-quarters of its export earnings, it is not surprising that the scramble for foreign exchange has encouraged the plundering of natural resources and the destruction of fragile environments. As the Brundtland report put it:
"Latin America's natural resources are being used not for development or to raise living standards, but to meet the financial requirements of industrialised country creditors."
I am speaking from the Dispatch Box tonight because we in the Opposition are talking about development and how to get it started again. I only wish that Conservative Members took the same view. Have they listened to the views of their Minister for Overseas Development, or has the Foreign Office not even bothered to explain that the number-crunching in the Treasury is crushing people's lives in the third world? If the Conservative party was to put overseas development in the Cabinet—giving it the sort of priority that the Labour party gives it—the Minister would perhaps have more clout in arguing for more money for the poor.
The 1990s will not be any better than the lost decade of the 1980s unless substantial and comprehensive debt relief is achieved. I accept that it will not solve all the problems of the third world. As Filipinos know, economic mismanagement and corruption, with earthquakes and hurricanes, do enormous damage. But however good the Government, the weather or world markets, there is no chance of stability and prosperity across the south without substantial debt relief. Western Governments must take action now to secure it.
We are discussing a statutory instrument that could be an instrument of debt relief. Our long-term aim is to reduce debt to the level at which developing countries can sustain regular payments without overburdening their economies and their people. The figures in the statutory instrument and in the Bank of England matrix give an estimate of their ability to do exactly that. Our long-term aim should be to reduce debt by the percentages that the Treasury and the Bank of England have supplied. Just imagine—a British Government official guide to debt relief! I am sorry to say that all we can do at the moment is imagine. The Government refused to seize the opportunity to encourage debt relief when they voted down Labour's amendments to the Finance Bill. They a re happy to sit back handing out tax relief to commercial banks and to watch the poor of the third world suffer.
Under British tax law, the Government are granting tax relief to commercial banks on the considerable provisions that they have set aside to cover doubtful debts to developing countries. According to this statutory instrument, provisions of about 50 per cent. of toal loans to developing countries will be regarded as bad, and therefore eligible for tax relief. The banks write down the debt in their accounting books and claim tax relief on the so-called loss. In practice, they do not write down the debt, but claim the full amount of the original debt from the

267
developing country. Having protected shareholders by making provisions, they can take a tougher negotiating stance with their impoverished debtors.
The amount of tax relief given on banks' provisions in 1988 is estimated to be about £1·7 billion—more than the Government spent on the entire third world aid programme. It is estimated that, last year, Barclays claimed £305 million in tax relief on its provisions against doubtful country debt; NatWest claimed £395 million; Lloyds claimed £453 million; and Midland claimed £184 million. That must be a ludicrous situation. The British taxpayer is subsidising the profits of United Kingdom banks but discouraging them from using those provisions to reduce Third-world debt. In other countries, such as the United States and Belgium, tax relief is not granted until debt reduction has been agreed by the banks.
Labour's proposal is to make tax relief conditional on the provisions being translated into debt relief. Debts must be written down in practice, not just in the books. If no debt relief is granted within, say, two years, the tax relief should be clawed back. Tax relief is supposed to be for irrecoverable debts. If part of the debt is truly irrecoverable, the banks should be willing to cancel that part.
The tiny change that the Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced in this year's Budget discriminates for the first time between a commercial sale of discounted debt and a sale to the debtor Government, which therefore contributes to debt relief. I welcome that recognition that tax law can be used to encourage debt relief, but the change does nothing to encourage the many other methods of reducing debt servicing, nor to encourage banks to use the enormous provisions already set aside for debt relief up to the prescribed levels.
The Brady plan and this year's World Development Movement report called on Governments to use tax, regulatory and other measures to encourage debt relief, yet the Government, who say that they support the Brady plan, refuse to take even this tiny step. Our proposal would cost the taxpayer nothing and would help debtor nations, yet still the Government reject it. In practice, the proposal might save the Treasury money, as banks would not get tax relief if they refused to grant debt relief.
What objections to the plan could the Government possibly have? Someone may tell me that the charity laws are generous enough and that the banks can claim tax relief if they donate debts to charity, as the Midland bank did to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. However, such donations are insignificant compared with the mountain of debt. I am not asking the banks for charity; I am simply asking that they take their share of responsibility. Surely the tax laws should enforce that responsibility.
Some will argue that the banks cannot afford to give debt relief. Do hon. Members really think that the people in the debtor countries should pay if that means untold damage to their development? United Kingdom banks have now set aside a provision of up to 70 per cent. of their third world loans. They could afford to reduce them by that much if only there were a mechanism to bring that about. In 1988, the profits of the big four United Kingdom
268
banks were £4·4 billion, and around 30 per cent. of that came from international operations. While the Third world suffers, the banks continue to rake in the profits.
Some hon. Members may question why banks should have to share the costs of bad loans. To put it another way, why should millions of people overseas sacrifice their poor living standards, their health and their education to repay loans, many of which have brought them no benefit? Let us consider the example of the Bhattan nuclear power station in the Philippines, which has cost $2·3 billion so far. Loans have come from Barclays bank, among others, and interest payments on the loan are $350,000 each day. That is about $2,000 since I started speaking in this debate.
The power station stands on a seismic fault, and it is far too dangerous ever to be switched on. Just keeping it idle but safe requires 400 engineers. Allegations of corruption and malpractice are still being investigated. The commercial banks expect the Filipinos to pay for that monstrous monument to mismanagement. Why should creditor banks and contractors, who either knew or should have known what they were funding, not take their fair share?
I anticipate that Conservative Members will say, "Oh no. Voluntary debt relief is very nice, but it is not for the Government to intervene. Commercial debt is a matter for creditors and debtors." What rubbish. Governments have been intervening in the commercial debt crisis all along, but to protect the banks and not to help the poor. Taxpayers are already bailing out the banks with tax subsidies. The whole idea of the Baker plan and of the Brady plan was for Governments to support commercial debt reduction even if that were done through voluntary market measures. Debt deals go hand in hand with International Monetary Fund instructions on economic reform and are now often supported by the IMF or by the World bank. That Governments are intervening is not in question. The question is, "Is not it time that this Government started using regulations to help indebted nations instead of just boosting the banks?"
A new instrument of debt relief is essential because the debt relief measures used so far have been welcome small steps, but have not gone nearly far enough. The Brady plan has not even lived up to its own modest expectations. Nicholas Brady was aiming at a 20 per cent. reduction in commercial debt in three years, but the banks have been slow to make reductions in debt and in debt servicing. Hence the estimates of the International Institute of Finance show that debt reductions through debt swaps and other Brady measures in the current year amount to about $22 billion, only 10 per cent. of the total commercial debt owed by Latin America and the Caribbean. In contrast, David Knox, former vice-president of the World bank for Latin America, warned us only last summer that Latin America needs a 70 to 80 per cent. reduction in commerical debt if there is to be any prospect of sustained economic growth.
For the low income countries not covered by the Brady plan, a reduction in their $6 billion commercial debt is also vital. Although small compared to their official debt, the commercial debts are blocking desperately needed trade credits. The World bank's facility established to buy up those debts from the private banks at high discounts is not working because the banks refuse to play ball.
We must now also consider eastern Europe. Poland is struggling with a $40 billion debt which brings the case for debt relief even nearer to home. Only Government action

269
will ensure significant commercial debt relief. Only Governments, not banks, can take the lead, co-ordinate the banks and ensure that the burden is shared internationally.
The central point is not difficult to grasp even if the implications are far-reaching. The Prince of Wales made the point well recently when he said:
"Most of all, we have to find a way of doing something about the burden of international debt. I really don't see how developing countries can be expected to achieve sustainable development and at the same time meet huge debt repayments."
If there is to be any hope for development in the 1990s, debt relief is essential. The Government should realise that there are several policies that they could and should implement. First, tax relief on provisions set aside by commercial banks should he made conditional on debt relief. Debts must be written down in practice, not just on paper.
Secondly, new procedures must be established to adjudicate on illegitimate debts involving allegations of corruption such as the $200B7;3 billion nuclear power station in the Philippines to which I referred.
Thirdly, the Government should consider establishing a special scheme to give additional debt relief to finance environmental protection measures in developing countries. That should apply not just to national parks but to major reforms such as agrarian reform aimed at reducing a country's dependence on exploiting and exporting natural resources and finding sustainable livelihoods for the poor.
Fourthly, Governments should revise the instructions to the IMF and the World bank so that they can be more assertive in pursuing debt reduction.
Fifthly, the Government must back international debt relief initiatives with legislation and regulations that ensure that all commercial banks take their share of the burden.
Finally, new initiatives on commercial debt must be accompanied by substantial action on official debt. The new Trinidad terms are another welcome small step., but they leave out many countries. They also leave out the EEC and World bank debt and they leave too much debt still to be paid by the very poorest of all.
In his speech setting out the Trinidad terms for dealing with debt owed by the poorest countries to Governments and official agencies, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
"I would look for a comparable response from the banks in the claims they hold."
If the Government want to show how seriously they take their new Prime Minister's words, they could start translating those hopes into regulations to promote reductions in commercial debt.
10.43 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have just heard a pretty lightweight speech. The key issue is what rate of tax relief we should allow.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You are stupid.
Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) had been in the House not for six years, as is the case, but for 16 years——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You are stupid. You do not understand.
Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) were to listen for a while, he might learn something. In the years he failed to get elected as the Member for Workington, he would have seen the overseas aid budget under the Labour Government being used to build ships for Poland. That was criticised at the time by people in the aid lobby, and most Labour Members felt ashamed at what their own Government had done.
The hon. Lady—if she ever becomes Labour Minister for Overseas Development, whether in the Cabinet or not—should know that her predecessor went to India before 1979 and did a deal with the then Indian Minister for Industry. Off the Indian central plan, they arranged to build a steelworks where it should not have been built in the constituency that the Indian Minister hoped to pick up because he was so unpopular in the one that he was going to have to leave. That is the way the Labour party worked in government.
It is worth recognising that we need a package of measures. I am pleased that the British Government started writing off debt to the poorest countries, and Britain was one of the first countries to do that. I am displeased that we are not meeting the United Nations target to which we are committed. I hope that one of the things that we shall do is to rediscover that we have betrayed our promise of 0·7 per cent. of gross national income. It does not help to have sanctimonius pap from the Opposition and from people who should know better.
According to the Baptist Times, the principal of London Bible college, Dr. Peter Cotterell, said:
"the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost 'not for party tricks"'.
Next to that article is a photograph of the director of Christian Aid, Michael Taylor, who, in an advertisement for the Labour party—as a private individual, of course, not as the director of Christian Aid—said that he hoped that everyone would support the Labour party. That statement appeared in the Baptist Times, and it is similar to an advertisement in the Church of England newspaper, which had a similar open letter from Eric James. On the same page there is a quotation from the Church Army saying that a photograph appearing in one of its publications meant that
"several readers said they would not support its work because 'it was a political act to publish a photograph'".
If that principle works with other political issues, it works just as well when people such as the director of Christian Aid make the mistake of confusing his role in trying to add to the Government's help to Third-world development. The reaction of people such as myself should be to send an extra donation to Christian Aid and point out that the man has made a mistake, and perhaps on reflection he will begin to recognise it.
Having spent some time on the Select Committee which examined overseas development, examining the Labour Government's record and using the same criteria to judge the present Government's record, I know that it is clear that more needs to be done. Part of that process is to see whether commercial institutions such as the banks will continue to lend money overseas. If there is no way of dealing with doubtful debts, they are not likely to lend more money. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley, in her 20-minute speech, signally failed to deal with future lending by banks.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: She made five points—didn't you hear?
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member for Workington should try to listen with his ears rather than his mouth. During the Workington by-election the hon. Gentleman went around shouting off in his own constituency and failed to get elected. If he goes on like that, he may fail to get re-elected next time.
The hon. Lady failed to deal with future lending by commercial banks. Unless there is a way of dealing with the tax consequences of doubtful debts, they will be unable to do so. That is a purely practical point, which is no doubt above Labour Members' heads. There is the general point about overseas development and about grants and loans.
It is clear that much of the money that other countries need will have to be either in grants or in low-interest loans. It is wrong that domestic difficulties in the United States, in this country and in other countries in Europe, which have led to higher interest rates than expected, should have added significantly to the cost of loans given or provided to industries in other countries or to their Governments. It is better to face those facts openly than to try to twist the debate, which is on a specific tax point, into a general overseas development debate.
The problem with the overseas development debate was faced by the World Development Movement 10 years ago, when it was saying—as I was—that we should meet the 0·7 per cent. target, but three months before, it put out a call to everyone in Britain voluntarily to provide an extra £20 a year. Only 600 people provided that £20 voluntarily, and that is only one third of the extra sum that we are asking from the 56 million people of the United Kingdom. Unless and until we can give a better lead with our voluntary donations, we shall find it difficult to keep the Government up to the mark on their public commitment.
I hope that in future, when we have a serious debate on overseas development, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley will take a slightly different approach. I hope, too, that the hon. Member for Workington will try to join a serious movement which is concerned with taxation and with our obligations as a part of one world to those who are like us, but who are not living in the United Kingdom with the benefit of the economic growth that we have enjoyed over the past 10 years.
10.50 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: I shall restrain myself and not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). It is only right that we in this place should be constructive on the issue.
Only about four hours ago, when a debate was taking place on the common agricultural policy, it was possible to draw a vivid contrast between the enormous sums that was then being discussed—80 per cent. is directed to intervention while 20 per cent. goes to the farmers, and in this country 80 per cent. of the subsidies go to 20 per cent. of the richest farmers—and no response to the needs of the Third world. There is an astonishing difference between the sums that deliberately we throw away in funding the CAP and those that we make available to the Third world.
I wish to direct a few remarks to the newly underdeveloped countries of eastern Europe. We have an as yet recognised debt to that part of Europe. The Conservatives milked the position in which it found itself——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must have regard to the terms of the regulations.
Mr. Flynn: I wish to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said about using the tax system as an instrument for assisting with debt relief. Every one of the eastern European countries is very different from its neighbours, but loans are being paid and I hope that we shall make loans in future. The collapse of eastern Europe will involve us within the terms of the motion and in terms of future policy. It is——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The regulations deal neither with future situations nor with hypotheses.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I help my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Paul Flynn.
Mr. Flynn: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Mr. Campbell-Savours: There will be authorities and organisations in eastern Europe that will have borrowed and that will be unable to service their debts. Those who have lent to them within the United Kingdom, who take the form of banks, will probably claim relief. It is probable that such claims have already been made under the regulations that we are discussing. I refer my hon. Friend to the first paragraph of the explanatory note, which sets out the position and the background to the argument that he advanced.
Mr. Flynn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
The scale of the dilemma that faces eastern Europe is one that is not recognised. We can use our tax system and tax instruments to aid the countries of eastern Europe in the repayment of loans and to encourage joint ventures.
The countries of eastern Europe face the triple task of building democracies, becoming independent and creating new market systems. In addition, they face the consequences of a collapsing Soviet economy, with all the lines of supplies and materials coming to an end. There is also the Gulf crisis, which has increased the price of oil to an almost impossible level for eastern Europe. I urge Conservative Members to understand that the know-how funds that the Government have made available to only a few countries amount to a modest contribution that is entirely out of scale to the disaster that is about to overtake eastern Europe. They should look at the problems of eastern Europe, particularly the Soviet Union.
The Conservative party has long had an infatuation with, and a belief in, the infallibility and omnipotence of Mikhail Gorbachev; only now is it finally recognising that he is responsible for economic chaos in that great empire. Some 13 of the 15 republics have announced that they wish to leave the empire and have some scale of independence. They all believe that they are putting a large piece of meat in the pot and receiving a small piece out of it.
While I realise that the instrument applies primarily to the banking system and the enormous problems of the third world, I urge the Government to recognise the magnitude of the problems emerging in eastern Europe.

273
They should use our taxation and banking systems in an imaginative and creative way to help those countries and aid them in creating their new democracies.
11 pm
Mr. John McFall: I am pleased to be speaking in the debate.
Two relevant events have occurred in the past two months. The first was when I visited Sussex university with some of my hon. Friends. We attended a week-long seminar at the institute of development studies and considered third-world problems. The overriding message from the academics and experts was that the third world's position is decreasing year by year.
Secondly, my interest was stimulated by correspondence from Christian Aid setting out its campaign on banking on the poor against third-world debt. It is worthy to bring that message to the attention of all parliamentarians, despite the words of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). This is too important a subject to start putting one side against the other. Let us consider Third-world debt and our own responsibility, and fashion a policy that will help the third world. The debate should be taken forward on that basis.
A quotation that aroused my concern was uttered by one of the Catholic bishops in south America, the general secretary of the Latin American Council of Churches, Bishop Federico Pagura. He said:
"The debt is killing and it is killing in earnest, literally thousands and thousands of people in Latin America."
The link between that statement and tonight's debate is that when we are aware that our high street banks and tax relief system involve some of the creditors who show no mercy, we simply cannot ignore the challenge. We must look at the systems of tax and tax relief if we are to help third-world countries. Another phrase used by a Churchman from Latin America was that we are all on the Titanic, but some of us are travelling first class. We are travelling first class, but to the same end as the other travellers if we do not heed the position of the Third-world countries.
As a result of the Christian Aid campaign appeal, I wrote to every church in my constituency, contacted the local Christian Aid branch through its secretary, Tim Rhead and received responses from the third world. My message to the Churches is to write letters to me so that I can seek meetings with the relevant chairmen of banks in Scotland and England, put the constituents' case to them and send the Minister the letters from the concerned Christians and constituents so that action occurs as a result of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Eltham spoke of 600 responses, which is a problem. But we should try to obtain 6,000 or 60,000 responses. We can do that tonight by highlighting our concerns about the third world and starting a campaign to arouse the interests of the commercially minded in the banks and the Government.
Third-world countries have suffered greatly since 1975. We all know about the quadrupling of the price of oil. Mexico is repaying £1 billion in interest every month, and it still owes more than it borrowed in the first place. The effect in Mexico, Brazil and other Third-world countries has been that, since the mid-1970s, their income has dropped by 20 per cent. Fewer children in those countries go to school, and UNICEF estimates that the debt crisis is costing about 500,000 young lives a year.
274
That catastrophe can be reversed only if something is done about the burden of debt. I echo what the hon. Member for Eltham said about Governments of the past, of whatever hue, having been responsible for the catastrophe. I beg the Government, because they are in power now, to do something positive.
Pastor Reginald Knowles of the Alexandria Christian Fellowship in my constituency lived in Guyana until a few years ago. He writes to me that it was a British colony until 1970. During his stay there he saw many sights that touched him deeply:
"A child sleeping on the pavement next to its mother. Another child whose arm had been chewed through by a rat while he had been a patient in the Georgetown hospital child surgical ward."
He says that he spoke to some
"nurses who were so demoralised with their pay—98 Guyanese dollars a week compared to the cost of an 8 oz jar of coffee, at 175 Guyanese dollars."
Given the increased lending by banks since the 1970s, and the drop in the price of commodities produced by third-world countries in the early 1980s, those nurses cannot even afford a jar of coffee.
That good pastor and his congregation have decided to send a full-time voluntary worker from my constituency, Ruth McEndoe from Dumbarton, to set up a charity.
I have not given the Minister notice of my next point, so it would be unfair to expect an immediate answer from him. Pastor Knowles says that the IMF and the World bank are engaged in an economic recovery programme that is due to provide $1 million in the form of grants, with the promise of another $2 million to come. Pastor Knowles says that there has been no mention of support for Guyana from Britain, and considering our past colonial links with that country, we should be ashamed of ourselves. What does the Minister think of that?
We should help countries such as Guyana in south America. We could invest large sums if only the banks could be persuaded to release the money. Banks are extremely important in all this. I do not want to score party political points, but it is a pity that the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is not here, since he is chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland. I shall write to him in the next few weeks, mentioning that British taxpayers are bailing out the banks.
Britain's four major high street banks, Lloyds, National Westminster, Midland and Barclays last year claimed relief for provision against Third-world debt that may eventually cost the average taxpayer £62·80. The Inland Revenue allows banks to claim relief at a rate of up to 35 per cent. on money set aside from their profits as insurance against bad debts in the third world. In 1989, the big four set aside £4·5 billion for that purpose, generating almost £1·7 billion in tax relief. That relief allows the banks to have their cake and eat it, providing them with public money to shore up their financial position but allowing them to continue to demand that countries such as Mexico pay their debts in full.
A tiny minority of debts have been reduced, but Third-world debt continues to grow and is spiralling. The banks are being subsidised by taxpayers, not for cancelling debts, but merely for assuming in the accounts that debts will not be repaid. Sad to say, the level of that public subsidy is higher than the amount that the Government spend on overseas aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) spoke about that. Official

275
development assistance in 1989 was £1·5 billion, costing each taxpayer £62·54. The tax relief to the big four banks was equal to £62·80 from each taxpayer.
In 1989, Lloyds set aside £1,763 million of debt provision. At 35 per cent. that represents tax relief of £617 million, equal to £24·49 for every taxpayer in the United Kingdom. National Westminster set aside £990 million, and tax relief on that is equal to £13·75 per taxpayer. Barclays bank set aside £983 million, and tax relief on that amounts to £13·65 for every taxpayer. Midland bank made a provision of £846 million, equal to £10·91 for every taxpayer. Those four high street banks set aside a total of £4·5 billion and received tax relief of more than £1·5 billion, resulting in £62·80 from each taxpayer. In the name of decency and morality, the Government should look at that and change the tax relief system.
I mentioned Brazil and Mexico. Brazil's foreign debt stands at US $120 billion, the biggest such debt in Latin America. No interest payments have been made since July 1989 and the Brazilian Government have said that none will be made for the remainder of this year. The Brazilian economy relies on huge imports of oil and is certain to be hit hard by the Gulf crisis. The Economy Ministry has calculated that this year's oil bill will be at least US $1 billion higher than forecast.
All concerned parliamentarians plead with the Government to do something about those problems. I leave the Minister with a Christian sentiment from Christian Aid. The bishop of a small industrial area near Rio de Janiero, Mauro Morelli, said:
"In the gospel the bread was blessed, and divided for 5,000. In Brazil 5,000 people produce the bread and one person takes it."
We are party to that shameful state of affairs. On behalf of Christian Aid and the concerned Churches in my constituency, I plead with the Minister to look at the issue and say that that is no longer acceptable. He should then do something to help Third-world countries and show that Britain has some morality.
11.8 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have heard some good speeches by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), especially on social policy and in the great debate in the early 1980s on child benefit, but I was appalled by his speech in this debate. I hope that, on reflection, he will apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). His approach was quite disgraceful.
The explanatory memorandum at the back of the statutory instrument states:
"These regulations provide the method of determining the 'relevant percentage' in relation to a debt owed to a company …"
I understand that the arrangements prior to the introduction of this instrument have been helpful to the banks. The statutory instrument that we are debating will help the Exchequer. The Labour party argues for a policy that will help the borrower.
The problem with the statutory instrument is that while it deals with some of the lenders' difficulties, it fails to deal with any of the borrowers' difficulties, the most important of which is invariably debt reduction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley referred to an example of such
276
a borrower, who was lent money by Barclays bank, which I understand in one year was able to claim £300 million of relief. No doubt, if I am wrong, it will write to tell me so. The example is that of the Bhattan power station in the Philippines, and it illustrates what is wrong with the arrangements for loans.
The power station cost $2·3 billion to build. I understand from research carried out by my hon. Friend's staff that it is not operational, and that the repayments on the loan, which was made by a number of organisations, including Barclays, are $350,000 per day. That is happening in a developing country with unstable political institutions and it is a classic example of what happened in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the Arab countries used London and other international financial markets to recycle petrodollars, and the banks receiving those dollars spent them irresponsibly on investments, many of which could not be justified on reasonable economic and commercial criteria.
The problem is that, wherever those investments have taken place, and in whatever projects they have been invested, they have only added to political instability. The burden of servicing the debt invariably falls on the taxpayers or, if they are fortunate, on rescheduling, although many of these countries are not in a position to reschedule their debts. The repayments swallow a large proportion of public expenditure, so that expenditure that should go on social projects does not, which in turn heightens social tension and creates the political instability that many of my hon. Friends hope to see avoided.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, 46 per cent. of the budget of the Philippines is spent on servicing its debts to overseas banks and other commercial institutions. The United Kingdom has an annual public expenditure of £200 billion. If we had to pay such a large proportion of it in that way, £90 billion would be spent on servicing debts. It is an unreasonable burden for those countries to carry. If we were supporting a £90 billion debt-servicing arrangement, there would be a revolution. There would be gross political instability and violence in our streets. Governments would shake, be removed, replaced, and removed time and again as a result of the difficult social conditions.[Interruption.]
Conservative Members may laugh if they wish—I do not object to that—but such things are inconceivable in our democracy. To some extent, the reason why we have a democracy is that we do not have a level of debt which requires such a level of public expenditure to service it. The absence of such debt provides political stability at home, but a debt on the scale of that carried by the Philippines can only undermine that country's Government. That is why there have been repeated attempts to bring down the Aquino Government.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may recall that this country did have crippling levels of debt, but we paid it off.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister is trying to score a political point. It is true that we have had large debts that we have had to repay, but never on the scale carried by Third-world countries—and never on such a scale that it threatened our very political stability.
I wish to relate the implications of that form of debt to another part of the world—eastern Europe—where huge political changes are taking place. I am sure that the Government are as aware as the Opposition of what might

277
happen if things went wrong. We see nightly on our television screens demonstrations, shortages of food, problems with distribution systems, and lack of managerial expertise in the development of market economy and private enterprise companies—all the deficiencies that we know make for political instability.
What worries me is not so much that money is going to eastern Europe—we want that—but that it will go into the wrong projects. If it is left completely to the free market, the danger is that the Bhattan nuclear power station syndrome could extend to parts of eastern Europe. Projects may be justified on some commercial basis, just as those managers who flew out of London in the early 1980s to invest petrodollars in other parts of the world somehow found commercial justification for the decisions that they were taking and the investments that they were recommending. That might happen in eastern Europe on a similar scale.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My shoulders are, I hope, broad enough to accept the insults that the hon. Gentleman doled out at the beginning of his speech. Had he listened rather than talking during my speech, he would have heard me say that we had been through this before. He is warning us of important issues. I raised the subject of what happened in the 1970s in an attempt to avoid it happening again, and I cited the two examples of eastern Europe and the Indian sub-continent. I hope that hon. Members will pay attention to this part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, as he is making an important point.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I did hear the hon. Gentleman refer to those matters, despite my sedentary interventions.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the implications of the statutory instrument for investment in eastern Europe. Perhaps there will not be an investment on the scale that exists in other parts of the world, but the danger is that we might go down that road. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the extent to which we monitor decisions on commercial investments in eastern Europe. Due to a lack of knowledge of how the market works, deci sions could be taken, involving large amounts of money, which might at the end of the day need to be bailed out on the basis of a statutory instrument such as the one that we are now debating.
11.19 pm
Mr. Maude: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I was mildly chided by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for the brevity of my opening remarks, but I spoke briefly because I spoke only about the regulations that are the subject of the debate, not about a number of other areas relating to the vexed issue of debt to which those regulations naturally lead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a powerful speech, which carried all the more weight because of his long record of speaking out courageously on such issues. His remarks about Christian Aid were particularly cogent because of his long experience as a trustee and director of it. The House should listen with considerable respect to what he says.
There has been a good deal of talk about other debt initiatives; other things that should be done to sort out the problem. The Government have played an active role in supporting debt initiatives—contributions to the
278
International Monetary Fund and the World bank, support for the Paris club, our own debt initiative leading to the Toronto terms and the new Prime Minster's Trinidad initiative—all of which have been widely welcomed and are extremely valuable measures. We supported the Brady initiative which has led to substantial bank involvement in restructuring agreements in, for example, Mexico, the Philippines, Costa Rica and Venezuela. All that is important, but it has been done on a sensible and hard-headed case-by-case basis.
The idea that blanket debt forgiveness does any good is crazy. Where countries have got themselves into substantial economic difficulties, the voluntary undertaking by Governments of a proper adjustment programme to get their economies back in order must be a condition for any programme of debt restructuring. It is no kindness simply to forgive debt and allow economies to go on being mismanaged in the way that has led to the problems arising in the first place.
It was difficult to connect what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said with the image that the modern Labour party has sought to project—taking an interest in things such as markets, and so on. She sounded like an old-fashioned capitalist conspiracy theorist; it was all a plot got up by the banks in order to drag hapless innocent Governments into debt so that they could be sucked dry for ever more. The level of bad debt that has arisen is not such as to lend credence to the view that there has been a hugely effective conspiracy.
The fact is that the banks are a very convenient whipping boy for the Labour party. The venom with which the hon. Lady spoke about the banks, as though they had been going around forcing Governments to borrow money against their will when that was the last thing they wanted to do, would be laughable were it not that the circumstances that we are talking about are so serious.
What the Government have done has not been hugely dramatic, but it is commendable and it has made a significant difference. The regulations are an important measure. They lend certainty where there has been uncertainty and will help the countries which have some of this debt.
Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Financial Secretary deny that, during the 1970s, a large amount of this debt was run up by some fairly aggressive selling by the western banking institutions to the third world countries concerned? It is not right for him to place the blame—if blame has to be placed—entirely on the shoulders of the borrowers rather than the lenders, as he is seeking to do.
The hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to explain how the Treasury arrived at the matrix figures that it has put before us in the regulations. They are broadly in line with those in the Bank of England's matrix, but differ substantially—both up and down—on a country-by-country basis with the secondary market value of the debts of the countries in question. Can the Financial Secretary say how the Treasury arrived at its figures, and is he confident that they represent a proper and realistic assessment of the debts of the countries concerned?
Mr. Maude: There is no such thing as perfection in a calculation of that nature. However, the regulations were issued in draft form for consultation, and most of the representations received in response were contained in the

279
final draft. As to aggressive selling, it takes two to arrange a loan—one to lend, and one to borrow. And all of the borrowing was voluntary.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Debts of Overseas Governments (Determination of Relevant Percentage) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 15th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
Ordered,
That any new Clause relating to capital punishment of which notice may be given not later than 12th December in respect of the Criminal Justice Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House; and that, when the Committee of the whole House have reported with respect to any such new Clause and the Standing Committee on the Bill have reported the Bill, the Bill be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole from the Standing Committee.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

St. Quentin's Castle, Llanblethian
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
11.26 pm
Mr. John P. Smith: I am grateful and pleased that I was successful in the ballot for an Adjournment debate, because it gives me a chance to raise a matter of considerable importance not only to my constituents but nationally, and which has national implications.
I have just returned from making a site visit to St. Quentin's castle at Llanblethian, near Cowbridge, in my constituency, where I discussed with local residents, members of the history society, and other eminent individuals the threat under which that historic monument has been for many years. They are all gravely concerned about the castle's future, because its features include what is probably the only surviving gatehouse of its type. Comprising three storeys and underground vaults, it was built in the early 14th century, but still has two complete rooms.
The gatehouse is threatened by overgrowth, exposure to the elements, and because for no fewer than 30 years nothing has been done to protect or restore that important monument. It is a unique architectural example, and has a commanding view over the ancient borough of Cowbridge and the village of Llanblethian. It was built by Gilbert de Clare in the early 14th century, but sadly not finished because he fell at Bannockburn before construction of the castle was completed. It was inherited by the Lord of Glamorgan, who was the keeper of the realm in the actions of Edward II. That would, in common parlance, classify him as the deputy Prime Minister of his day. The castle was then taken over by a distinguished Glamorganshire family of French origin, the de Spensers, and has a fine tradition. It was lived in for hundreds of years before becoming a prison, and then served as a local amenity and open space for the people of Llanblethian until the 1960s.
So distinguished is the castle's history that we have managed to collect considerable support for its protection—not least from the recently deposed deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), once Member of Parliament from Port Talbot, whose family emanates from that part of the world. The campaign has also been supported by Lord Parry of Neyland, my predecessor Sir Raymond Gower, and most Members of Parliament whose constituences are adjacent to mine. That shows that this issue is not only important but all-party and, indeed, non-political. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some good news tonight, and tell me exactly what he and the Welsh Office intend to do. We have waited too long to find out.
It was 30 years ago that the Llanblethian community council first raised the matter with the Ministry of Works. The council was worried about the deterioration of this fine castle as a result of decades of neglect. Since then, the local history society, the borough council, the Women's Institute, the old Cowbridge borough council and Vale of Glamorgan borough council—and local residents, in a voluntary capacity—have all striven in their turn, and have used every official channel and every proper means available to them to ensure that works were carried out. Nevertheless, they failed.

281
One of the reasons for that failure was the fact that the land was acquired, in or around 1964, by a new owner who took over from the old family of Mansell Evan Edwards. In my view—and in that of most of the people who have tried to protect the monument—the landowner has deliberately obstructed their efforts. He has not co-operated with the bodies, both Government and voluntary, which have tried to get something done on the site, and despite every encouragement and inducement over a considerable period, not one piece of work has been carried out to protect, restore or renovate the building.
That is formidable record, and a disgraceful one; so disgraceful, indeed, that, in November 1983, the Minister himself, when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Wales, informed my predecessor that the Welsh Office had decided—presumably as a last resort—to acquire the castle and the site by compulsory purchase, with a view to carrying out immediate repair and renovation to protect the building. I stress the word "decided"—it was not a question of consideration. Now, almost exactly seven years later, not a thing has been done to protect the castle. We face the onset of winter, with frost, wind and rain, all of which will damage the fabric and structure of the building; yet it seems that, once again, nothing will be done.
In the past 15 months, I have involved myself in the campaign. In view of his early involvement in the matter, I wrote to the Minister of State to find out why the land had not been acquired, and what the Welsh Office intended to do about carrying out works and gaining access to the site. In April this year, the Minister wrote to me saying that the agents of the current landowner appeared to be very co-operative—or words to that effect—and seemed to have every intention of doing something; the Welsh Office therefore wished to give them the opportunity.
That will not wash. I believe that there have been at least seven efforts at drawing up programmes of repair in conjunction with the landowner, but he has no intention of carrying out any such work. Indeed, he is making a fool of the Welsh Office and running rings around Ministers—I could cite several examples to prove that.
Following the letter of 1983 to which I referred, Cadw said that the owner could not be traced or contacted. In 1976 the Department of the Environment referred to not being able to get access to the site. The minutes of a meeting of the Vale of Glamorgan borough council in 1983 recorded that it appeared that the landowner had no intention of co-operating with the Welsh Office to restore the building.
It seems that the landowner in question acquired a number of sites in the area—probably cheaply, considering the price of agricultural land in the mid-1960s—with a view to developing, and I believe that that is his view to this day. He is prepared to see that great monument deteriorate, and even be destroyed, so that he can develop there, as he has tried to do on land which he owns in the area and which, if it was deemed housing rather than agricultural land, would be worth a great deal of money.
Lest the Minister and his officials at the Welsh Office have any doubts about the landowner in question, we have a duty to draw attention to some of his activities and some of those of his family. They represent what I consider 'to be the unacceptable face of property developers, using tactics that we thought were well behind us and would not be considered acceptable in this day and age.
282
The brother of the chap about whom I am talking has a well known reputation in the nearby town of Penarth for openly destroying classic pieces of Edwardian architecture. He knew that what he had done was illegal and that he would be fined, but the fine bore no relation to the crime committed, so he was happy to destroy two buildings. He was the owner of a hotel of international acclaim in the same area, but some years ago it mysteriously burned down, much to the horror of the people of the area. I understand that he is currently facing action in the courts for committing an act of vandalism to part of our heritage—another unique piece of architecture.
The owner of the site to which I am drawing attention has a reputation such that local residents and activists are afraid to approach him. He is known for threats and strong-arm tactics. It is a sad and disgraceful record. They do not appear to me to be the sort of people with whom Ministers and the Welsh Office should be seeking to co-operate. As I said, they are running rings around Ministers and functionaries at the Welsh Office. The members of Cadw are also being made to look absolute fools.
I am not here tonight to castigate individuals, although in the last Session I tabled early-day motion 1007 which, being supported by some of my hon. Friends, criticised the Minister. I did so with some regret because, as he knows, I have much respect for the Minister, but I felt that we could not allow the situation to continue. It makes a mockery of the role of Government and of attempts to try to protect our heritage. I did that with a heavy heart, but I felt that it had to be done to continue to draw attention to this serious matter.
We must act quickly. The state of the castle, which I visited today, is worrying. Foliage and trees are growing from the structure of the building, and although it is a three-storey monument one can hardly see it because of the overgrowth. There is no fence to stop young children entering, so I presume that it is a dangerous site and that a serious accident could be caused. However, I do not want to give the landowner the excuse of allowing it to reach such a state that it has to be demolished and lost for ever. If we do not act quickly, we shall lose this fine monument, its architecture and its history. I do not think that the people of my constituency and of Wales would forgive the Welsh Office if it allowed that to happen.
Finally, I shall highlight what we are up against. I was recently in the area and, quite by coincidence, bumped into some American tourists who were, I am glad to say, staying there. The castle, of which they were aware, is a tourist attraction, but if it were restored it would be a far better tourist attraction. In discussing the problems that we face in trying to protect the monument, they could not believe that we could allow our heritage and our children's heritage to be threatened in this way. They have seen part of their heritage and indigenous culture destroyed. Many of the pioneers of north America left their heritage and history behind them. What would they give to have a castle 800 or more years old, built on original remains and with a history to be proud of oozing from it?
The castle has stood in that community for 700 or 800 years, but seven or eight years of inactivity, red tape and bureaucracy in the Welsh Office has allowed this unscrupulous landowner to get away with what he has been getting away with for the past 26 years. It is an outrage that a building which has stood for so long may be destroyed in such a short time.

283
I make a plea for the Minister to act, to acquire the site and the castle compulsorily and to undertaken the necessary repairs immediately.
11.43 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) for raising this issue and for giving me the opportunity to set out the facts in this far from straightforward case. I have some news for him this evening.
St. Quentin's castle, on the outskirts of Cowbridge in South Glamorgan, is a scheduled ancient monument within the terms of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. As such, it enjoys statutory protection and, as with all scheduled monuments, work on it cannot be carried out without special permission from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. St. Quentin's castle is in private ownership.
St. Quentin's is a quadrilateral castle with a fine central gatehouse built in the 14th century for Gilbert de Clare, who was killed at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Typically of many monuments of that period, which have not benefited from a strategy for conservation, its general condition is poor. Tree growth and ivy have taken their toll.
The condition and custody of St. Quentin's castle have been a source of local concern for some 30 years. Nearly 10 years ago, particular concerns were expressed that the monument was deteriorating and in response to local anxieties, including representations from the late hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, Sir Raymond Gower, we looked very carefully at what might be done to safeguard its future. In 1983, I wrote to Sir Raymond and told him that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State had decided to seek the compulsory acquisition of the monument to ensure its long-term preservation.
Such action would have been a drastic step in that it would have involved denying the rights of a private owner. Indeed, during the passage of the 1979 Act, an undertaking was given to the House by the then Labour Administration. During the Bill's Second Reading, Mr. Kenneth Marks assured the House that powers of compulsory acquisition would never be used except when it was the only way of securing the preservation of a monument. That has seemed to us a sensible test and it is an undertaking that we have been happy to honour. The circumstances in which the powers to which I refer are used should be rare and the arguments for doing so must be fully tested. I think it would clearly be wrong to take action before other options had been exhausted.
At that time, we judged that the action referred to in my letter to Sir Raymond was appropriate. Restoration works had not been undertaken for many years and there seemed little likelihood that they would be. As a result, we had first to identify the legal owners—which was not without its difficulties—and secondly, to put it to them that they should carry out repairs. The owners' response was to tell us of their wish to take forward restoration—to a high standard—of the castle in their stewardship. Those assurances were renewed periodically as we went back to ask why action had not been taken. That work of any
284
consequence has not been carried out is a great disappointment and, in that, I share the frustrations of local people who value St. Quentin's.
During this year, there have been extensive discussions with the owners' agent. They culminated in an application for consent to undertake a programme of restoration work. That was received in early April and our formal consent was issued on 5 July 1990. The Vale of Glamorgan borough council has, we are told, been consulted on public safety and on the force of tree preservation notices. Those matters are very much for it and for the owners. A tree surgeon has provided advice on clearance of ivy and other vegetation that covers the castle. Regrettably, work has yet to start and, despite promises from the owners' agent that a programme of works would be shared with Cadw, no action has been taken. Our offers of grant assistance have not been taken up. In view of that, we have had to consider what further measures we might take to deal with the castle's plight.
The House will wish to be assured that officials from Cadw have met local people with a special interest in the site to advise them of our actions. The matter has also been considered by the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales at its summer meeting. Hon. Members will know that the board is our independent statutory advisory body on such matters.
To guide our deliberations, we asked for an up-to-date and detailed survey of the monument by the Department's specialists. The survey revealed that, while the structure of the gatehouse was generally sound, there were loose joints in the masonry at high level that required attention. Following a site meeting in October with the owners' agents, officials reported to us that there was no immediate prospect of an early start on the site and that with the approach of winter there were parts of the monument's fabric that needed to be dealt with more urgently.
As a result, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that, in the absence of works carried out by the owners, it was essential to use his statutory powers to undertake urgent repair works to St. Quentin's. The necessary legal notices have been dispatched. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have been closely in touch with the matter for some years and have kept him informed of all but those very latest developments. I have corresponded with him and, most recently, copied to him my letter of 21 November 1990 to Mr. Wayne David MEP.
The House will recognise from what I have reported that the welfare of an ancient monument cannot be safeguarded without due regard being paid to the interests of private owners. In considering this case, we have had to keep in view the physical condition of the monument. That we have done throughout the period since I wrote to Sir Raymond. We are satisfied that the owners have had every opportunity to carry out the urgent works for which our consent has been granted.
We are also satisfied that, unless action is taken now, the integrity of the monument will be threatened. That is why staff from Cadw's directly employed labour force will enter the site to undertake a programme of urgent works. Those works will comprise the removal of tree growth and ivy at the upper levels to the gatehouse and treatment of masonry to prevent its collapse. It will take about two weeks to complete. The cost of that work will be met by the Welsh Office.
That action is evidence of our regard for St. Quentin's castle. Once completed, the works will prevent further

285
deterioration of the monument for sufficient time for its future to be further considered with the owners. I do not rule out the use of compulsory purchase powers if that proves to be the only way to safeguard the monument. There remains, however, a range of options open to us short of that and we shall be exploring those further. It would be our preference to secure the monument's future through a voluntary arrangement, possibly through a guardianship arrangement, but the option of compulsory purchase will remain closely in view.
The Government are firmly committed to the protection of the built heritage. We attach considerable importance to the protection of sites such as St. Quentin's castle. Our action in carrying out repairs to that monument using Cadw's staff is clear evidence of that commitment.
286
We sometimes share the frustration of those who wish to see action taken without any delay, but we in Government cannot ride roughshod over the interests of the private owner. That is why we have been extremely patient in the case of St. Quentin's. We have afforded every opportunity for the owners to take forward the good intentions that they have consistently expressed. Indeed., I am convinced that the undertakings given to the House during the passage of the legislation required nothing less. We have allowed that opportunity and we are now taking action, which I believe the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENERGY

  Mersey Oil Pipeline
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to publish the report into the failure of the Mersey oil pipeline.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have today published the report, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to improve ministerial accountability to Parliament.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: Ministers are already fully accountable to Parliament.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Aid
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if his Department plans to make any representations to the European Commission about allowing United Kingdom objective 2 regions to be eligible for assistance under the European Commission's Telematique programme;

  (2) if his Department plans to make any representations to the European Commission about allowing United Kingdom objective 2 regions to be eligible for assistance under the PRISMA initiative.

  Mr. Leigh
  The European Commission has decided that the proposed Telematique and PRISMA initiatives should be restricted to objective 1 regions, which include Northern Ireland. The Commission's decision took account of the requirement in article 12(5) of Council regulation (EEC) No. 2052/88 about devoting approximately 80 per cent. of the European regional development fund to objective 1. Other Community initiatives, notably RECHAR, apply in objective 2 regions.

  Commercial opportunities arising from expenditure in objective 1 regions under Telematique and PRISMA will of course be available to companies throughout the United Kingdom.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the extent to which United Kingdom regions will benefit from the European Community's STRIDE programme.

  Mr. Leigh
  The European Commission's STRIDE initiative will provide support from the European Community structural funds for research and development projects and technology transfer in Northern Ireland 56
  and in objective 2 regions in Great Britain. The Commission has indicated a financial allocation to the United Kingdom of 28 mecu (about £20 million) until 1993.

  Drambuie Liqueur Company
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will prosecute the directors of the Drambuie Liqueur Company for failure to file up-to-date accounts under sections 242 and 244 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  The accounts for Drambuie Liqueur Company were received at Companies house on 31 October 1990; therefore, section 244 does not apply.

  Task Forces
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the location and number of task forces which have been set up, together with a list of their functions and budgets.

  Mr. Leigh
  There are five business task forces located in DTI headquarters divisions. Their functions cover certain specific tasks on commodities and steel, aircraft arid aero-engines, shipbuilding, vehicles and market opportunities. The main budgets for which they are responsible are as follows:

  1990–91 Estimates/provision

  £ million

  Development of the EH101 helicopter

  12·5

  Development of the A330/340 airliners

  134·0

  (Launch aid levy receipts

  73·7)

  Home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme

  43·5

  Shipbuilding intervention fund

  25·0

  Assistance to redundant steelworkers

  16·3

  Civil aircraft research and demonstration

  25·4

  Details of these budgets are set out in the Supply Estimates 1990–91 (class IV Trade and Industry) and in chapter 4 of the "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm 1004).

  As my Department's contribution to the Government's action for cities programme, there are 16 inner-city task forces. Their function is to generate enterprise in defined areas of particular deprivation and to create training and employment opportunities for the residents of those areas. In aggregate their budget for expenditure on projects in 1990–91 is £20·4 million. Task forces are located in:

  London (4)

  West (North Kensington and Hammersmith)

  Spitalfields

  Deptford

  North Peckham

  Birmingham

  Bradford

  Bristol

  Coventry

  Derby

  Hartlepool

  Leeds

  Manchester

  Merseyside (2)

  Toxteth (Liverpool)

  Wirral (Birkenhead)

  Middlesbrough

  Nottingham

  Mortgages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to bring all mortgages under the Financial Services Act and to instruct tied agents and direct salesmen to display their status in advertisements, correspondence and premises.

  Mr. Redwood
  The investment element of mortgages is already subject to the requirements of the Financial Services Act. The display by tied agents and direct salesmen of their status is a matter for the regulatory body concerned.

  Industry Council
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Community Industry Council held on 26 November.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 3 December 1990:] The Industry Council meeting on 26 November, which Lord Hesketh attended for the United Kingdom, adopted a directive on aid for the Community shipbuilding industry and considered a communication from the Commission on industrial policy. The Council also discussed a Commission proposal to extend the patent term for pharmaceuticals, the industrial implications of the Uruguay round, the future of the ECSC treaty and Community craft industries.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  UNRWA
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the increase of contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency made by Council of Europe member states at the recent pledging conference.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At the November pledging conference at the United Nations General Assembly, donor countries announced contributions to UNRWA for 1991 totalling almost US$200 million. Of this Council of Europe member states have so far pledged some US$73 million.

  Public re-current expenditure per pupil1 in calendar years at 1985 prices

  £ sterling

  1st level

  2nd level

  1st and 2nd levels

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  1983

  1986

  France2

  920

  1,020

  1,440

  1,610

  1,210

  1,360

  West Germany3

  1,080

  1,110

  1,400

  1,580

  1,320

  1,440

  Japan

  980

  1,030

  1,220

  1,210

  1,080

  1,110

  United Kingdom4

  980

  1,050

  1,440

  1,720

  1,230

  1,410

  United States of America a

  n/a

  1,760

  n/a

  2,470

  1,740

  1,990

  >b5

  n/a

  1,760

  n/a

  2,130

  n/a

  1,904

  n/a not available.

  1 At purchasing power parity.

  2 Public expenditure including subsidies to private education and pupils/students in public and private education.

  3 Public sector education only.

  4 Public expenditure only. First level includes primary education from 5 years of age. Second level includes secondary and further education.

  5 Includes students and expenditure on courses some of which may be equated with second level education.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Governors
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he gives to local education authorities about the extent of the counselling they should give to school governing bodies under the local management of schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  It is for local education authorities to determine the amount, nature and timetable of training and support for school governors, in the light of local needs. Plans for governor support and training must be included in Schemes for the local management of schools. Over the four years 1989–90 to 1992–93, the Government will be supporting expenditure of around £247 million on the implementation of LMS. Some £24 million will be spent directly on support and training for school governors; other expenditure on equipping all schools with management information systems, and training school administrative staff to use them; on helping LEAs to implement their LMS schemes; on management training for heads and other senior teachers; and, from 1991–92, on support for the administration costs of schools with delegated budgets, will also help governors exercise their new responsibilities.

  Teachers
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will change their conditions of service to allow teachers adequate time for planning, preparation and assessment resulting from the introduction of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  The use of teachers' directed time, and in particular its division between teaching and non-teaching duties, is a matter for head teachers to decide.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was spending per pupil in 1979 and in the latest available year for which figures are available in each of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The readily available data are as follows:

  Child Protection Teachers
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much his Department is making available in the current financial year in support of the community education development centre's project to assist local education authorities in the training of teachers designated by schools as child protection teachers; and how many teachers are currently covered by the scheme.

  Mr. Fallon
  Up to £35,000 is being made available for this purpose by the Department in the current financial year. The principal objective of the project is to train the trainers of designated teachers. Thus, for every local education authority that takes up the offer of the courses, the designated teacher in each of their schools will benefit; and other teachers will also benefit from the knowledge and awareness spread through the schools by the designated teachers. About one sixth of local education authorities have so far participated in the scheme, and more courses are scheduled.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the budget for grant

  1990

  11991

  Scientific

  Non-scientific

  Scientific

  Non-scientific

  IACR

  449

  251

  433

  246

  IAH

  292

  228

  283

  227

  IAPGR

  337

  222

  321

  208

  IER

  115

  194

  103

  163

  IFR

  381

  171

  245

  131

  IGER

  308

  224

  285

  209

  IPSR

  234

  92

  234

  92

  Total

  2,116

  1,382

  1,904

  1,276

  1 Estimate.

  Abbreviations:

  IACR

  —Institute of Arable Crops Research.

  IAH

  —Institute for Animal Health.

  IAPGR

  —Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics.

  IER

  —Institute of Engineering Research.

  IFR

  —Institute of Food Research.

  IGER

  —Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research.

  IPSR

  —Institute of Plant Science Research.

  In addition, 295 scientific and 269 non-scientific AFRC staff were seconded to the British Society of Horticultural Research (since renamed Horticulture Research International) on 1 April 1990. The estimated numbers of these staff for 1 April 1991 are 260 and 245 respectively.

  The number of staff employed on 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1993 will depend on a number of factors, including the funding available to the AFRC through the science budget and the extent of commissions from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and externally funded research. The present estimate is that the number of scientific staff employed by the AFRC at its institutes and Horticulture Research International will be about 1,960 and the number of non-scientific staff will be about 1,400 on each date. No breakdown of anticipated staffing levels at each AFRC institute is available.

  19-year-olds (Non-advanced Education)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his best estimate of the numbers of 19-year-olds in full-time non-advanced education.
  60
  support towards the cost incurred by local education authorities undertaking training of staff in child protection for the years from 1979–80 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Fallon
  Sums have not been separately identified within grant programmes for this area of training. It is for each local education authority to determine what provision to make to meet local circumstances, taking account of the various sources of income available to it, including general revenue support grant and the LEA training grants scheme.

  AFRC Staff
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of(a) scientific and (b) non-scientific staff that are employed at each of the Agricultural and Food Research Council institutes; what are his estimates for 1991, 1992 and 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The figures for scientific and non-scientific staff in post on 1 April 1990 and the estimated number of staff in post on 1 April 1991 for each Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) institute are as follows:

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1989–90, there were 19,000 full-time students aged 19 in further education in England.

  SERC Report
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received the annual report of the Science and Engineering Research Council for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The annual report of the Science and Engineering Research Council for 1989–90 has been submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend under the requirements of the Science and Technology Act 1965, and a copy is being placed before the House today.

  My right hon. and learned Friend and I were pleased to note a number of significant achievements through council activity during the past year, including:

  (a) the inauguration of, and initial results from, the large. electron positron (LEP) collider at CERN, the laboratory for European particle physics research in Geneva;

  61

  (b) the successful completion of the Solar Maximum mission; as part of which United Kingdom instruments on board this NASA satellite provided detailed data about the Sun; and

  (c) a 10-year project at City university, resulting in a heightened ability to detect or correct faults in the electricity grid system; and

  (d) collaborative research at Oxford university, jointly funded by SERC and Rolls-Royce plc, to increase understanding of gas flows and heat transfer in turbine blades.

  Following these achievements in the past year, we now look forward to learning SERC's new assessment of scientific priorities following the review of forward activities now under way.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Funds
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all organisations in Denton and Reddish constituency receiving training funds.

  Mr. Jackson
  There are five organisations in Denton and Reddish constituency receiving training funds through contracts with the Manchester TEC and the Stockport and High Peak TEC. The CCE business centre, Windmill lane, Denton is contracted to provide employment training. The other organisations receive funds under the business growth training programme. These contracts are commercial-in-confidence and names cannot be given.

  Training
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what commitment his Department offers to training schemes specifically aimed at encouraging women to return to work.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department's work to promote women's participation in training has been based on the requirement that all training providers implement a positive commitment to equal opportunities. Action has therefore been directed at removing the barriers that women encounter in reconciling training with their domestic commitments and allowing them access to the full range of programmes. The training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies are addressing the specific needs of women returners and providing training schemes that meet them.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in respect of future mining options in Antarctica.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have tabled, and are seeking support for, an environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty, but we believe there can be no comprehensive system for the protection of the Antarctic environment that does not deal with the longer term issue of minerals. We therefore see the need to reach agreement on a legally binding instrument to address the question of minerals before the need for it arises.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his 62
  policy to direct the British delegation to the meeting of the Antarctic treaty parties in Chile to make clear their support for the declaration of a world park in Antarctica.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The British delegation to the XIth special consultative meeting of Antarctic treaty parties is prepared to discuss all proposals which could lead to a return to consensus within the Antarctic treaty.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Christian Salvesen in respect of plans to remove hazardous materials and waste from their abandoned whaling station on South Georgia.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Officials of this Department have held discussions over the past year with Christian Salvesen plc about pollutants at the four disused whaling stations on South Georgia of which the company are the leaseholders. An operation to clean up the stations, funded jointly by Christian Salvesen and the Administration of South Georgia, will start shortly.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his present policy in respect of the declaration of a world park in Antarctica.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We remain committed to achieving the best possible environmental protection for Antarctica, and to this end, regard the maintenance of the Antarctic treaty system and a return to consensus within it as essential. Whilst we do not see any merit in calling it a world park—it is already a "Special Conservation Area" under the 1964 agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora—we are prepared to discuss all proposals to protect the Antarctic environment.

  Civil Nuclear Facilities, Iraq
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the intentions of the safeguards authorities of the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect civil nuclear facilities in Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The IAEA announced on 27 November that their inspectors had carried out a safeguards inspection in Iraq and had concluded that all material under safeguards could be accounted for.

  British Embassy, Washington
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in connection with the recent visit by the First Secretary of the British embassy in Washington, Mr. Sherard Cowper-Coles, to the conference in Boston hosted by the Investor Responsor Research Centre, what costs were involved in(a) travelling, (b) accommodation, (c) entertainment and (d) other expenses.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The costs were as follows:

  US$

  (a) Travelling

  371·00

  (b) Accommodation

  108·85

  (c) Entertainment

  None

  (d) Other expenses (meals)

  69·15

  63

  US$

  Total

  549·00

  Iran
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made with regard to the imprisonment of(a) Fatemeh Hosseinzadeh Tussi Moghadam, (b) Dr. Fatemeh Izadi and (c) Nahid Dorudiahi by the Islamic Republic of Iran;

  (2) what representations he has made with regard to the imprisonment of (a) Malekeh Mohammadi, (b) Zohach Ghaeni and (c) Mariam Firouz by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. But we note that the persons in question are mentioned in the report of the UN special representative on human rights in Iran, Mr. Galindo Pohl, and that he has called on the Iranian Government to respond in detail to the allegations of abuses of human rights put to them.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is making representations to the Islamic Republic of Iran on their human rights record.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Together with our partners in the European Community, we are seeking a resolution in the third committee of the United Nations which reflects the state of human rights in Iran. This is a matter we take very seriously.

  Bulgaria
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning the need for humanitarian aid in Bulgaria; how much humanitarian aid has been given by the United Kingdom to Bulgaria; and what plans the Government has for future humanitarian aid to Bulgaria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are contributing to humanitarian aid through the European Community's PHARE aid programme. The Community has recently approved a mother and child health support programme worth approximately £3·5 million. We have encouraged the Commission to consider urgently Bulgarian requests for humanitarian aid (including food and medical supplies). The question was last discussed during the meeting of the EC-Bulgaria Joint Commission on 30 November.

  Syria
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Syrian Government on their human rights record.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Like any other Government, the Syrian Government are well aware of our position on human rights. Following the resumption of diplomatic relations with Syria, we shall be better placed to make representations when this is justified.

  Kurdistan
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will put Kurdistan and the situation of Kurdish people on the agenda of any future peace conference on the middle east.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We cannot at this stage outline the agenda of any future middle east peace conference. We expect the rights of all peoples in the region, including the Kurds, to be respected by the Governments of the countries in which they live. We do not recognise an independent Kurdish state. The frontiers of states in the region are set by international treaty.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is making representations to the Saudi Arabian Government on their human rights record.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Saudi Government are well aware of the importance we attach to the observance of human rights standards.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Drainage Authorities
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those occasions in the past five years when he has used his powers under the Land Drainage Act 1976 or the Water Act 1989 to give directions to a regional or local flood defence committee of the National Rivers Authority, or their equivalent under previous legislation in cases where they are promoting a specific land drainage or flood defence scheme which does not accord with his priorities.

  Mr. Curry
  Powers to give such directions in relation to capital land drainage or flood defence schemes have only been available since the coming into force of the Water Act 1989. No direction could therefore be given under the Land Drainage Act 1976, and none has so far been given under the Water Act 1989.

  Feedstuff Additives
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals to restrict the use of canthaxanthin as an animal feedstuff additive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have accepted the expert advice of the Food Advisory Committee that the use of canthaxanthin as a feed additive should cease and I have asked the EC Commission to urgently review the data on the toxicity of canthaxanthin in order to achieve concerted EC action to prohibit its use in feed. The EC Commission has responded promptly by referring the matter to its expert scientific committee, the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition. This committee is urgently considering data supplied by the United Kingdom.

  Grain
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the quantity and value of grain produced in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 stating value in real and 1990 prices.

  Production and Output of Cereals in the United Kingdom

  Total (£ million)

  Calendar year

  Production

  Output ( = Sales)

  Value of physical change in on-farm stocks

  at current prices

  at 1985 prices

  ('000 tonnes)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  1979

  17,416

  1,184

  11

  1,195

  1,315

  1980

  19,482

  1,462

  -3

  1,459

  1,546

  1981

  19,621

  1,693

  -30

  1,663

  1,623

  1982

  21,910

  2,062

  -29

  2,033

  1,859

  1983

  21,307

  1,996

  85

  2,081

  1,759

  1984

  26,602

  2,420

  84

  2,504

  2,421

  1985

  22,466

  2,281

  -141

  2,140

  2,140

  1986

  24,489

  2,174

  22

  2,196

  2,202

  1987

  21,675

  2,043

  -35

  2,008

  2,025

  1988

  21,028

  1,898

  -18

  1,880

  1,980

  1989

  22,685

  1,926

  67

  1,993

  2,067

  1990

  22,533

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a Not yet available.

  Gramoxone
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the use of Gramoxone; whether his Department is aware of any impact of this product on the population of the brown hare; if he is conducting any relevant research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The use of Gramoxone (active ingredient paraquat) is monitored regularly as part of the rolling survey of pesticide usage carried out by Agriculture Departments, the results of which are published. It has been alleged to cause mortality in brown hares but exhaustive tests carried out by MAFF scientists have failed to establish any link. Another possibility is a virus disease, similar to one found in rabbits, which has been detected in several European countries. To pinpoint the real cause farmers have been asked to report all suspicious deaths of brown hares. Their carcases will be checked for viral symptoms in addition to the normal tests for pesticides.

  Market Support and Grant Schemes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the market support schemes and (b) the grant schemes operated by his Ministry for which financial resources do not come from the European Community.

  Mr. Gummer
  Market support schemes and grant schemes are listed, together with their financial provision in the supply estimates. Figures for the previous 10 years are available in the publication "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1989" and in the annual review of agriculture White Papers. These publications are available in the Library of the House.
  66
  Mr. Curry
  The table shows information on the tonnage of cereals produced and the available information on its value. Following standard practice, valuations are only made of (net) off-farm sales and of changes in on-farm stocks; cereals used directly on-farms are not valued. The valuations are at current prices (ie the prices pertaining in each year) and at 1985 prices.

  Fishermen Research Centres
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of(a) scientists and (b) non-scientific staff employed at his fisheries research centres since 1980, including those expected to be employed in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Gummer
  The numbers of staff are broken down as follows:

  1980

  1990

  Scientific, professional and technical staff

  256

  251½

  Marine staff

  88

  51

  Others (including e.g. administrative and support staff)

  134½

  101½

  Totals (excluding casuals)

  478½

  404

  The manpower numbers at the Directorate of Fisheries Research in 1991–92 will depend upon the estimates for my Department's 1991–92 running costs which are still being finalised.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to make the recently announced payments of the suckler cow premium.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 26 November at column 324 to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

  Chief Veterinary Officer's Report
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish the report of his chief veterinary officer on animal health for 1990.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is intending to publish the report of the Chief Veterinary Officer—"Animal Health 1990"—on 3 July 1991.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the loss of 380 jobs at the Agricultural and Food Research Council.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The AFRC has announced that an estimated 380 posts will be lost in 1990–91 as a result of a combination of factors, including reductions in commissioned work as a consequence of the Government's "near-market" policy, an anticipated reduction in contracts work from the private sector, and the restructuring of AFRC institutes.

  I am confident that the AFRC, which is an independent, chartered body, will continue to make every effort to hold redundancies to a minimum by deploying staff threatened with redundancy to other posts, with retraining as required.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to ensure that slaughterhouses in Northern Ireland meet European Community export standards.

  Mr. Brooke
  Of the 33 slaughterhouses in Northern Ireland, 27 are already approved for intra-Community trade. Required European Community standards are enforced by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  Controlled

  Maintained

  Board area

  Nursery school places

  Nursery classes in primary schools-places

  Total places

  Nursery-school places

  Nursery classes in primary schools-places

  Total places

  Total places nursery schools and places

  Belfast1

  700

  775

  1,475

  550

  50

  600

  2,075

  Western

  500

  150

  650

  —

  75

  75

  725

  North-Eastern

  725

  200

  925

  100

  100

  200

  1,125

  South-Eastern

  475

  150

  625

  250

  —

  250

  875

  Southern

  525

  425

  950

  100

  300

  400

  1,350

  Total

  2,925

  1,700

  4,625

  1,000

  525

  1,525

  6,150

  1 Coterminous with the Belfast city council area.

  There is no grant-aided nursery provision in integrated schools or in other schools.

  Government of Northern Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his reply of 28 November 1990,Official Report, column 399, what is meant by the term "Government of Northern Ireland" in note (5) to the table; and to whom in Northern Ireland the present Government are answerable.

  Mr. Brooke
  The reference in note (5) to the table in my reply of 28 November, is to Northern Ireland Departments which, under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, are subject to

  Grammar Schools (Intake)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision he has made in respect of the intake allowed into grammar schools in Northern Ireland where there is a number of children of Regular Army personnel in the intake and where the number of children in a yearly cohort is affected by the transfer of such children to those schools from elsewhere when their parents are transferred to Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Admissions are a matter for individual school boards of governors, and the children of regular Army personnel resident in Northern Ireland are catered for within the normal arrangements. Schools are required to admit pupils up to their approved admissions number and to apply admissions criteria if they are oversubscribed. The admission of children from schools outside Northern Ireland is also a matter for individual schools, but the Department of Education is prepared to consider applications for an increase in school admissions numbers in cases where there are extenuating circumstances.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many places in nursery education are available in(a) Belfast city and (b) each education and library board area in Northern Ireland; and in each case how many are (i) in the integrated school system, (ii) in controlled schools, (iii) in maintained schools and (iv) in other schools, respectively.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Details of full-time equivalent nursery pupil places for each education and library board are as follows:

  my direction and control The VAT Act 1983 Section (49) provides for refunds to "the Government of Northern Ireland."

WALES

  National Library and National Museum
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many visits he has made to(a) the national library of Wales and (b) the national museum of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend visited the national museum in September and plans to take up the invitation of the president to visit the national library of Wales at an early opportunity.

  National library
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to visit the national library of Wales to meet staff members to discuss the future of the library.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) on 31 October which explained the procedures for dealing with staff inspection reports.

  Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes to enhance training in rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The new training and enterprise councils are locally based and run by local employers in partnership with the local community; this will ensure that the needs of a rural economy are catered for effectively. A new all-Wales Agricultural Training Board has been established, with a headquarters at Builth Wells, to meet the training needs of the industry. It will work closely with the TECs and in due course, after the necessary primary legislation, it will be able to extend its remit beyond the strict confines of the agricultural industry.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of day centre and day hospital places for mentally handicapped people in Wales currently; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  District

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Clwyd

  Alyn and Deeside

  16

  8

  37

  9

  24

  7

  30

  5

  Colwyn

  28

  9

  28

  6

  25

  5

  32

  10

  Delyn

  24

  2

  24

  5

  25

  10

  42

  12

  Glyndwr

  19

  5

  21

  5

  27

  6

  36

  4

  Rhuddlan

  22

  12

  23

  9

  22

  10

  32

  11

  Wrexham Maelor

  30

  10

  31

  10

  47

  14

  37

  8

  Total

  139

  46

  164

  44

  170

  52

  109

  50

  Dyfed

  Carmarthen

  22

  5

  16

  4

  28

  9

  56

  7

  Ceredigion

  36

  8

  31

  7

  57

  8

  81

  11

  Dinefwr

  16

  6

  15

  2

  16

  3

  42

  5

  Llanelli

  16

  3

  30

  9

  22

  9

  33

  9

  Preseli

  10

  2

  19

  2

  15

  5

  36

  3

  South Pembrokeshire

  22

  5

  14

  3

  21

  2

  63

  11

  Total

  122

  29

  125

  27

  159

  36

  311

  46

  Gwent

  Blaenau Gwent

  10

  2

  14

  1

  7

  3

  15

  6

  Islwyn

  19

  6

  19

  6

  13

  5

  29

  6

  Monmouth

  59

  12

  76

  12

  70

  12

  105

  18

  Newport

  48

  12

  37

  8

  49

  6

  73

  10

  Torfaen

  36

  11

  19

  6

  26

  7

  33

  6

  Total

  172

  43

  165

  33

  165

  33

  255

  46

  Gwynedd

  Aberconwy

  30

  15

  51

  6

  51

  14

  69

  16

  Arfon

  26

  8

  34

  7

  29

  3

  39

  4

  Dwyfor

  20

  3

  48

  9

  41

  9

  59

  16

  Meirionnydd

  22

  9

  13

  1

  25

  4

  20

  0

  Ynys Mon

  55

  17

  59

  23

  56

  17

  71

  18

  Total

  153

  52

  205

  46

  202

  47

  258

  54

  70
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There were 3,499 places in local authority day care, training and employment facilities for mentally handicapped people on 31 March 1990. At 31 March 1979, there were 2,540 places in local authority adult training centres for mentally handicapped people. The increase between 1979 and 1990 is nearly 38 per cent.

  There were 22,484 place-days—that is, the number of places times the number of days the place was available—in NHS day care facilities for mentally handicapped people in the year from 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990. This is equivalent to an average of 62 continuously available places over the year. Comparable information for 1979 is not available.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning appeals were brought in each of the years 1986 to 1989 in relation to each local planning authority in Wales; how many were allowed; and what was the overall cost to his Department of the planning appeal system in each of those years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The numbers of planning appeals brought and allowed are given in the table.

  For the financial year 1989–90 the cost of the appeal system was £1,006,200. I regret that figures for earlier years are not available.
  71

  District

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cynon Valley

  17

  3

  14

  3

  18

  3

  27

  7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  15

  5

  12

  4

  19

  4

  9

  4

  Ogwr

  46

  5

  41

  6

  62

  8

  58

  14

  Rhondda

  19

  7

  10

  0

  14

  5

  29

  7

  Rhymney Valley

  15

  1

  16

  4

  16

  7

  24

  5

  Taff Ely

  43

  13

  38

  6

  38

  10

  56

  10

  Total

  155

  34

  131

  23

  167

  37

  203

  47

  Powys

  Brecknock

  33

  9

  26

  6

  28

  6

  44

  7

  Montgomery

  5

  3

  7

  2

  22

  5

  30

  5

  Radnor

  11

  4

  5

  1

  13

  4

  12

  0

  Total

  49

  16

  38

  9

  63

  15

  86

  12

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff

  54

  20

  67

  21

  73

  21

  103

  36

  Vale of Glamorgan

  73

  22

  74

  21

  55

  21

  101

  32

  Total

  127

  42

  141

  42

  128

  42

  204

  68

  West Glamorgan

  Port Talbot (formerly Afan)

  4

  1

  9

  1

  4

  1

  4

  1

  Lliw Valley

  20

  10

  32

  6

  26

  5

  31

  4

  Neath

  10

  2

  11

  5

  10

  3

  22

  5

  Swansea

  70

  23

  58

  10

  69

  22

  78

  30

  Total

  104

  36

  110

  22

  109

  31

  135

  40

  Columns headed 'A' relate to appeals made.

  Columns headed 'B' relate to appeals allowed.

  Marina, Aberystwyth
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to build a marina in Aberystwyth during the next five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Ceredigion district council submitted a scheme for the development of a marina at Aberystwyth harbour as a project of regional or national importance. An announcement on this and other applications will be made in the House shortly.

  Textile and Knitwear Industry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the future of the textile and knitwear industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Several. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has policy responsibility for the textile and knitwear industry, has also received representations. I will ensure that he is aware of any views expressed by the industry in Wales.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums from public funds were paid to(a) local authorities, (b) private firms and (c) private individuals to repair damage caused by floods in Wales in February; for what purposes such sums were paid; how much of these sums were paid by central Government and for what purposes they were used; and what sums were paid by councils and for what purposes they were used.
  72
  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the formal expression of interest by Pembrokeshire health authority in becoming an all-authority national health service trust.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No, but if a formal application is submitted, a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the total budget of family practitioner committees for the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and the predicted forecast for the year 1990–91; and if he will itemise the family practitioner committee budget breakdown for each health authority for each of the years identified above.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The financial allocations made to family practitioner committees in Wales—re-titled family health services authorities from 17 September 1990) for their administration revenue expenditure are shown in table 1.

  Apart from identifying separately the amounts built in for certain fixed costs, over which an FHSA has no discretion, these cash-limited budgets are not disaggregated into discrete items when they are allocated. It is for each FHSA to decide how its administration revenue budget is best used in accordance with statutory requirements and such directions and guidance as might be given to them.
  73
  In addition to their administration revenue budgets, FHSAs are responsible with effect from the present financial year, for delegated, cash-limited, budgets covering expenditure on a proportion of general medical practitioners' practice staff and premises costs. These are shown for each FHSA in Wales at table 2.

  Table 1

  Administration revenue net allocation1

  FPC/FHSA

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–912

  Clwyd

  429

  513

  800

  Dyfed

  387

  488

  745

  Gwent

  500

  622

  920

  Gwynedd

  312

  404

  620

  Mid Glamorgan

  600

  710

  1,045

  Powys

  200

  287

  435

  South Glamorgan

  615

  763

  1,040

  West Glamorgan

  378

  462

  720

  1 All figures in £'000s.

  2 Latest approximate position; figures continue to be adjusted within year.

  Table 2

  Delegated budgets for general practitioners staff and premises partial reimbursement1

  FPC/FHSA

  1990–91

  Clwyd

  3,320

  Dyfed

  3,779

  Gwent

  4,261

  Gwynedd

  2,749

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,610

  Powys

  1,538

  South Glamorgan

  3,872

  West Glamorgan

  2,907

  1 All figures £'000s.

  Housing
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest figure for the number of private sector starts in the housing market in Wales; and what has been the increase since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Ten thousand and ninety five private sector starts were recorded during 1989—2,509 or 24·9 per cent. more than the 7,586 started in 1979.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each county in Wales his estimate available of the number of people in that county with problems of alcohol misuse.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The only available data are provided in the Welsh heart health survey of 1985, which recorded people drinking in excess of "safe limits" defined by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales. These are 20-plus units per week for men and 15-plus units for women. The figures are as follows:

  Health authority district

  Proportion of population aged 18–64 drinking in excess of the safe limits

  Estimated number of people aged 18–64 drinking in excess of the safe limits

  percentage

  Clwyd

  Male

  37

  29,000

  Female

  12

  5,600

  East Dyfed

  Male

  36

  14,600

  74

  Health authority district

  Proportion of population aged 18–64 drinking in excess of the safe limits

  Estimated number of people aged 18–64 drinking in excess of the safe limits

  percentage

  Female

  15

  3,300

  Gwent

  Male

  43

  39,700

  Female

  10

  5,600

  Gwynedd

  Male

  34

  14,900

  Female

  10

  2,700

  Mid Glamorgan

  Male

  46

  53,800

  Female

  13

  8,600

  Pembrokeshire

  Male

  38

  7,700

  Female

  10

  1,200

  Powys

  Male

  38

  8,500

  Female

  13

  1,600

  South Glamorgan

  Male

  41

  35,800

  Female

  11

  6,000

  West Glamorgan

  Male

  43

  33,500

  Female

  11

  5,300

  1990 data will become available next year.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the finances available to his Department and allocated by his Department to combat alcohol misuse in each of the financial years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90; if he will indicate the amounts initially available in 1990–91, and any additional sums made available by his Department for this purpose since the start of the financial year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Responsibility for tackling alcohol misuse rests primarily with health and local authorities. The Health Promotion Authority for Wales has a role in primary prevention and many voluntary organisations participate as part of their overall activity. Finances to these organisations are unhypothecated and it is not possible separately to identify that element earmarked for combating alcohol misuse.

  Specific funds are made available to Alcohol Concern Wales and these are as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  38,187

  1988–89

  42,000

  1989–90

  49,546

  1990–91

  68,079

  It was announced in June of this year that an additional £150,000 was available for organisations concerned with combating alcohol misuse.

  Teachers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many resignations there have been from the teaching profession in each year between 1985 and 1989, inclusive, in each local education authority area; and if he will publish figures for(a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary school sector.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 28 November 1990]: The number of teachers who have moved out of teaching

  75
  posts in the maintained education sector is given as follows for the years ending 31 March 1986 to 31 March 1988. Information for 1989 is not yet available, and information prior to 1986 is not readily available.

  Year ending 31 March

  Primary

  Secondary

  1986

  Clwyd

  29

  60

  Dyfed

  52

  68

  Gwent

  53

  81

  Gwynedd

  29

  36

  Mid Glamorgan

  56

  83

  Powys

  14

  20

  South Glamorgan

  40

  75

  West Glamorgan

  38

  56

  Wales

  311

  479

  1987

  Clwyd

  21

  67

  Dyfed

  26

  54

  Gwent

  48

  76

  Gwynedd

  23

  38

  Mid Glamorgan

  57

  102

  Powys

  23

  17

  South Glamorgan

  51

  68

  West Glamorgan

  47

  58

  Wales

  296

  480

  1988

  Clwyd

  22

  51

  Dyfed

  50

  62

  Gwent

  58

  87

  Gwynedd

  20

  37

  Mid Glamorgan

  41

  91

  Powys

  17

  29

  South Glamorgan

  45

  63

  West Glamorgan

  61

  61

  Wales

  314

  481

  Note: Figures exclude those teachers who moved out of posts for the following reasons: death, disbarment, retirement, movement within the maintained education sector in England or Wales, or became part-time. Also, those teachers who entered and left a post within the year March 31 to March 31 are not included.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of members nominated by his Department to represent ethnic minority communities to serve on bodies in Wales during the past three years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  (holding answer 27 November): Members are appointed on the basis of their personal qualities and relevant experience and not as representatives of any particular ethnic group. Candidates are not required to state their ethnic origin; consequently, such information is not recorded.

HEALTH

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what alternatives to benzodiazepine sleeping pills are currently being provided in national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The current British national formulary lists seven drugs or chemical groups which are available as alternatives to benzodiazepine hypnotics.
  76
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has that pharmaceutical companies are providing incentives to national health service doctors to continue supplying benzodiazepines to patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have no such evidence.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department is currently doing to ensure that no new patient becomes addicted to benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Doctors already have advice about the use of these drugs and are aware of the need to prescribe them carefully. The number of prescriptions for benzodiazepines dispensed by community pharmacists in Great Britain in 1989 was approximately 9 per cent. smaller than in 1988.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for each individual benzodiazepine were issued by community pharmacists during 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Benzodiazepines

  Great Britain: 1989

  Drug group

  Prescriptions

  (millions)

  Temazepam

  7·1

  Nitrazepam

  4·2

  Diazepam

  4·1

  Triazolam

  2·1

  Lorazepam

  1·7

  Chlordiazepoxide

  0·8

  Oxazepam

  0·5

  Lormetazepam

  0·2

  Loprazolam

  0·2

  Clonazepam

  0·1

  Clobazam

  0·1

  Totals

  22·1

  These estimates are based on a sample of prescriptions of approximately 1 in 200 in England and Wales and 1 in 100 in Scotland which were dispensed by community pharmacists.

  Residential and Nursing Homes (Touting)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on touting for business on health authority property by agents for residential and nursing homes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales gave him on 22 November at column 193 and 30 November at column 517. I am not aware of any such problems elsewhere.

  Pollen
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's review of the possible impact of vehicle gases on the potency of pollen grains.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 17 July at column 514.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the percentage of agency nurses employed by the national health service at the present time.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest available information relates to 30 September 1989 and shows that agency nursing and midwifery staff accounted for less than 2 per cent. of the total wholetime equivalent nursing and midwifery staff employed in the national health service in England.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which national health service trusts he intends to establish; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  National health service trusts are a central element in our plans for reforming the NHS and improving the services which it provides to patients. While remaining firmly a part of the NHS, trusts will have wide ranging and significant powers of self-determination which will enable them to deliver high quality patient care and to provide greater job satisfaction to their employees.

  The trust initiative has already attracted considerable interest from those working within the NHS. Last year some 86 hospitals and other units indicated that they were considering applying to become operational on 1 April 1991. Staff from the management executive worked closely with these units while they were deciding whether to apply for trust status and during the preparation of their applications. During this period a number of units decided not to go ahead with a formal application for trust status on this occasion.

  Sixty-six hospitals and other units formally applied for trust status, and regional health authorities have consulted widely on these applications. I have now considered these applications and the comments made on them during the consultation period by those consulted and others. In doing so, I applied four key criteria: that the establishment of a Trust will give clear benefits and improved quality of service to patients; that management has the skills and capacity—including strong, effective leadership, sufficient financial and personnel management expertise and adequate information systems—to run the unit effectively; that senior professional staff, especially consultants, are involved in the management of the unit; that the trust will be financially viable. As a result, I have decided to establish the following 56 trusts, to become operational on 1 April 1991.

  Northern RHA

  Northumbria Ambulance NHS Trust

  Newcastle Mental Health NHS Trust

  The Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  Yorkshire RHA

  Leeds General Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS Trust

  St. James's University Hospital NHS Trust

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  Trent RHA

  Northern General Hospital NHS Trust

  Lincolnshire Ambulance and Health Transport Service NHS Trust

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital NHS Trust

  East Anglian RHA
  78

  Norfolk Ambulance NHS Trust

  Anglian Harbours NHS Trust

  North East Thames RHA

  Southend Health Care NHS Trust

  The Royal London Hospital and Associated Community Services NHS Trust

  The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  The Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital NHS Trust

  The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  North West Thames RHA

  North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  Mount Vernon Hospital NHS Trust

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  Central Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  South East Thames RHA

  The Guy's and Lewisham NHS Trust

  South West Thames RHA

  Lifecare NHS Trust

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  Homewood NHS Trust

  The St. Helier NHS Trust

  Croydon Community NHS Trust

  Epsom Health Care NHS Trust

  The Royal Surrey County and St. Luke's Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Western RHA

  Weston Area NHS Trust

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  Cornwall Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  The United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Mental Handicap NHS Trust South Devon Health Care NHS Trust

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  Wessex RHA

  The Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust

  West Dorset Mental Health NHS Trust

  The West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Dorset Community Health NHS Trust

  Oxford RHA

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust

  West Midlands RHA

  First Community NHS Trust

  The Mental Health Foundation of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust

  The Rugby NHS Trust

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mersey RHA

  The Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  The Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS Trust St. Helens and Knowsley Hospital Services NHS Trust Chester and Halton Community NHS Trust

  The Cardiothoracic Centre—Liverpool NHS Trust Broadgreen Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital and Community Services NHS Trust

  The Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Western RHA

  Manchester Central Hospitals and Community Care NHS Trust

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  Establishment orders for these trusts will be made forthwith and the trusts will be established later this month to run in shadow form for a period of some three months before taking up their full responsibilities on 1 April 1991.
  79
  We shall be setting the external financing limit for each trust shortly. In doing this, we shall take account both of the overall resources available and of the plans which trusts have set out. Inevitably, this will involve difficult decisions, as it will not be possible to meet all trusts' capital aspirations next year. As has been made clear in the past, our first priority will be to ensure funding for those schemes which Trusts could otherwise expect to be funded from regions' capital programmes next year had the trusts remained under health authority management.

  I believe that the following eight applications have the potential to become successful trusts and hope in time they will do so.

  Newcastle General Hospital

  The City and Hackney Health District

  Harefield Hospital

  North West Hertfordshire Priority Services Unit St. Thomas' Hospital

  Bromley Priority Health Services Unit

  Bromley Acute Services Unit

  Mid Downs West Unit (Crawley Hospital)

  However, I consider that, in view of the very significant management tasks they face it would not be right to establish them now as trusts, with the substantial responsibilities as well as benefits which trust status confers. I realise that my decision will come as a deep disappointment to them. I am writing to each of them today setting out the reasons for my decision and I hope that, if they are able to demonstrate that they have satisfactorily addressed these issues, I shall be able to establish them as trusts to come into operation in April 1992.

  Following recent changes to the project management team of the potential trust, the sponsors of the proposed North Devon healthcare trust believe that it would be preferable that I defer the establishment of the trust at present. They remain committed to trust status but believe it would be sensible to give the new management team more time to establish itself and win local support. I have no doubt that the proposed trust has the potential to deliver benefits to local people, but I agree entirely that it would be sensible for me not to establish the trust at present.

  The sponsors of the proposed Brighton hospitals trust have also asked that their application should be deferred. I have agreed to this request. I have no doubt that Brighton has the potential to become a successful trust in the future.

  Meanwhile, we are already embarking on the process of responding to the many expressions of interest in a second wave of potential trusts to become operational on 1 April 1992. I am delighted to report that there is great interest in this, and I have today agreed that the 111 hospitals and other units listed, which have expressed interest in trust status, can proceed to work up applications to become trusts on 1 April 1992.

  Northern RHA

  Cleveland Ambulance Service

  Darlington Health Services

  Gateshead Community Unit

  Gateshead Mental Health

  Northgate Hospital Northumberland

  North West Durham Hospital and Community Services

  North Tees Acute and Community Services

  Royal Victoria and Dental Hospital Newcastle upon Tyne

  South Tees Acute Hospital Services

  Yorkshire RHA

  Airedale Health Services

  80

  Bradford Mental Health and Community Services

  Harrogate Health Services

  Northallerton Health Services

  Scarborough Health Services

  Trent RHA

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services Unit

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Services

  City Hospital Nottingham

  Doncaster Community Development Unit

  Doncaster Priority Care Services Unit

  South Sheffield Hospital Unit

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital

  Nottingham Community Unit

  Nottingham Mental Health Unit

  Childrens Hospital Sheffield

  South Lincolnshire Mental Handicap Services

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service

  University Hospital Nottingham

  Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield

  East Anglian RHA

  East Suffolk Community Unit

  Huntingdon Acute Unit Hinchingbrook Hospital Huntingdon

  Huntingdon Community Unit

  Papworth Hospital, Huntingdon

  West Norfolk and Wisbech Community Unit

  North West Thames RHA>

  Barnet Community Health Services

  Barnet General Hospitals

  Ealing Community Health Services

  East Hertfordshire Acute, Priority and Community Services

  Harrow Acute Unit—Northwick Park Hospital

  Harrow Community Services

  Hillingdon Primary and Community Health Services

  North West Hertfordshire Mental Handicap

  South Bedfordshire Community and Mental Health Services

  South Bedfordshire General Hospitals

  Parkside Mental Health Unit

  North East Thames RHA

  Basildon and Thurrock Acute Services

  Basildon and Thurrock Community

  Essex Ambulance Service

  Mid Essex Acute

  North East Essex Acute

  North East Essex Mental Handicap Unit Turner Village

  North East Essex Mental Illness (Severals Hospital)

  Oldchurch and Rush Green Hospitals

  Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital

  Harold Wood Health Services

  Southend Priority Services

  South East Thames RHA

  Bexley Acute and Community

  Bexley Mental Health and Mental Handicap Services

  Brighton Community and Mental Health Services

  Camberwell Provider Unit

  Dartford and Gravesham Acute Unit

  Thameslink HealthCare Trust

  Eastbourne Community Services Unit

  Hastings Provider Services

  Lewisham Community Services

  Maidstone Acute and Community Unit

  Maidstone Mental Handicap

  Tunbridge Wells Mental Handicap Services

  Queen Victoria Hospital East Grinstead

  West Lambeth Priority Services

  South West Thames RHA

  East Surrey Acute and Community

  East Surrey Mental Illness and Mental Handicap

  Frimley Park Hospital

  Merton and Sutton Mental Handicap and Community Unit

  Mid Surrey Mental Handicap

  Mid Surrey Mental Illness

  North West Surrey Acute

  81

  North West Surrey Community

  Wessex RHA

  Bath Mental Health Unit

  Bournemouth and Christchurch Acute Unit

  Poole Acute Unit

  East Dorset Community Services

  Oxford RHA

  Aylesbury Vale Priority Care Services Unit

  Horton General Hospital

  Kettering Priority Services Unit

  Milton Keynes Acute and Maternity Services Unit

  Milton Keynes Community and Mental Health Services Unit

  West Berkshire Mental Health Unit

  Wexham Park Hospital

  Wycombe Health Services

  South Western RHA

  Avon Ambulance Service

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Acute and General Services

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service

  Plymouth Community Unit

  West Midlands RHA

  Coventry Walsgrave Health Services

  East Birmingham Acute

  Good Hope Hospital

  Herefordshire Community Services Unit

  South East Staffordshire Community and Mental Health Unit

  South Warwickshire Community and Handicap Services Unit

  Mersey RHA

  Aintree Hospitals Trust (Walton and Fazakerly)

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit

  Mersey Regional Centre for Radiotherapy and Oncology

  St. Helens and Knowsley Community Unit

  Southport and Formby Acute Hospitals Unit

  Mersey Regional Centre for Medical and Surgical Neurology

  Macclesfield Acute Services

  Macclesfield Community Services

  North Western RHA

  Burnley Provider Unit

  Oldham Acute and Community Services

  Rochdale Acute and Community Services

  Wrightington Health Services

  These expressions of interest do not commit the hospitals or other units to applying for Trust status.

  The following four expressions of interest have been received from colleges of nursing.

  Colleges of Nursing

  Avon College of Health Studies

  South West College of Health Studies

  Normanby College of Health Care Studies

  Portsmouth Education Services

  I shall be considering further how best these colleges can achieve the flexible management arrangements they desire in the future.

  I believe that the scale of the response to the trust initiative shows the very real enthusiasm of those working in the NHS to take advantage of the benefits of trust status and, over time, I expect to see trust status becoming the natural model for all units providing patient care.

  Delighted as I am at the real success of the trust initiative I should emphasise that it forms only a part, albeit a very major part, of our overall programme of reform of the NHS. That programme is making steady progress. When trusts become operational, they will do so as part of a radically changed NHS, in which there is a clear separation between purchasers and providers of care and a system of contracting which will begin to achieve a closer match between resources and needs and will help to drive forward further improvements in quality and value
  82
  for money. The first wave of GP fund holders will be able to exert greater influence over the care their patients receive. Medical audit will be in place across the NHS. These developments, put in place in a relatively short time, taken together, will represent an immense achievement by those working in the NHS and will enable the service as a whole to deliver significant improvements in patient care.

  Hospital and Ward Closures
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list hospital and ward closures in each district in Herefordshire since 1987.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The following hospital in Herefordshire was approved for closure:

  Year

  Hospital/Facility

  1989

  Old Priory

  Information on ward closures is not held centrally.

  Drugs
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the illnesses for sufferers of which drugs are available free of charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  People who suffer from one or more of the following medical conditions are entitled to claim exemption from all NHS prescription charges:

  A permanent fistula which requires continuous surgical dressing or an appliance.

  Epilepsy for which continuous anti-convulsive therapy is essential.

  A continuing physical disability which prevents the patient from leaving home without the help of another person.

  Diabetes mellitus, except where treatment is by diet alone

  Myxodema (hypothyroidism).

  Hypoparathyroidism.

  Diabetes insipidus or other forms of hypopituitarism.

  Forms of hypoadrenalism (including Addison's disease for which specific substitution therapy is essential.

  Myasthenia gravis.

  In addition, there are extensive general exemption arrangements which are designed to protect those who are likely to have difficulty in paying charges. Anyone who is not exempt, but who needs a lot of prescriptions, is able to limit their outlay by buying a prepayment certificate ("season ticket"). As a result of these arrangements, a charge is paid on less than one in five items dispensed.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated annual cost of the free provision of drugs for patients suffering from life-threatening cancer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements exist for national health service hospitals to provide a casualty service at a lower level of service than a full accident and emergency unit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health authorities determine the level of accident and emergency services they consider necessary to meet the needs of their population and thereafter make suitable arrangements for such provision.
  83
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the regulations and guidelines which influence staffing levels and related issues in national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no regulations or standards set centrally on staffing levels in the national health service.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Accountants' Pay
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many accountants in the Treasury received pay increases in excess of 29 per cent. in the pay settlement years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990, taken individually.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are no instances of accountants in the Treasury receiving increases in excess of 29 per cent. in respect of any of the pay settlement years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Agency name

  Parent department

  Date of establishment

  Staff numbers1

  Building Research Establishment

  Environment

  2 April 1990

  680

  Central Office of Information

  —2

  5 April 1990

  740

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Agriculture

  2 April 1990

  560

  Civil Service College

  Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

  6 June 1989

  200

  Companies House

  Trade and Industry

  3 October 1988

  1,100

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Transport

  2 April 1990

  5,300

  Driving Standards Agency

  Transport

  2 April 1990

  2,100

  Employment Service

  Employment

  2 April 1990

  33,800

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Environment

  1 October 1989

  330

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  —2

  14 Decmber 1988

  3,200

  Hydrographic Office3

  Defence

  6 April 1990

  890

  Information Technology Services Agency

  Social Security

  2 April 1990

  2,900

  Insolvency Service

  Trade and Industry

  21 March 1990

  1,400

  Intervention Board

  —2

  2 April 1990

  860

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Trade and Industry

  30 October 1989

  320

  Land Registry

  —2

  2 July 1990

  10,800

  Meteorological Office

  Defence

  2 April 1990

  2,250

  National Engineering Laboratory

  Trade and Industry

  5 October 1990

  520

  National Physical Laboratory

  Trade and Industry

  3 July 1990

  830

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Trade and Industry

  18 April 1989

  50

  Natural Resources Institute

  Overseas Development Administration

  2 April 1990

  330

  Occupational Health Service

  Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

  2 April 1990

  100

  Ordnance Survey

  —2

  1 May 1990

  2,550

  Patent Office

  Trade and Industry

  1 March 1990

  1,150

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Environment

  6 July 1989

  60

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Trade and Industry

  2 April 1990

  460

  Registers of Scotland

  —2

  6 April 1990

  1,000

  Resettlement Agency

  Social Security

  24 May 1989

  530

  Royal Mint

  Chancellor

  2 April 1990

  970

  Training and Employment Agency

  Northern Ireland

  2 April 1990

  1,700

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Transport

  2 April 1990

  70

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Transport

  1 August 1988

  1,600

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Agriculture

  2 April 1990

  70

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  Trade and Industry

  20 April 1989

  300

  34 in number

  79,720

  1 Figures based on staff in post as at 1 April 1990.

  2 Indicates an Agency which is an independent Government Department.

  3 Defence Support Agency. Figure does not include service personnel.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list in the Official Report all those units of central government that are under consideration for agency

CIVIL SERVICE

  House of Commons Disqualification Act
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what arrangements are to be made to provide hon. Members with information about the amendments contained in the resolution tabled on 26 November updating schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act.

  Mr. Renton
  A detailed explanatory note on the revised resolution tabled on 3 December is available from the Vote Office.

  Agency Status
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list in the Official Report all the executive agencies that have been established, their parent Department, the date on which they were established and the numbers of staff employed.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: The current list of established executive agencies is as follows, together with their parent Departments, date of establishment and staff employed:

  status, their parent Department, the target date for establishment as an agency and the numbers of staff employed.
  85
  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: The current list of activities announced as candidates for agency status, together with their parent departments and

  Candidate Name

  Parent Department

  Staff number1

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  Welsh Office

  220

  Central Science Laboratory

  Agriculture

  400

  Central Statistical Office

  2

  1,000

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Treasury

  430

  Child Support Agency

  Social Security

  Not Known

  Civil Service Commission (The Recruitment Agency)

  Office of the Minister for the Civil Service

  340

  Defence Research Agency

  Defence

  11,700

  Directorate General of Defence Accounts3

  Defence

  2,100

  Farm and Countryside Service

  Agriculture

  2,550

  Fisheries Protection Services

  Scottish Office

  170

  Forensic Science Service

  Home Office

  580

  Fuel Suppliers Branch

  Environment

  30

  Historic Scotland

  Scottish Office

  570

  Military Survey3

  Defence

  850

  NHS Estates

  Health

  130

  Passport Office

  Home Office

  1,200

  Planning Inspectorate

  Environment

  550

  Pollution Inspectorate

  Environment

  210

  Property Holdings

  Environment

  1,600

  RAF Training3

  Defence

  2,500

  Royal Parks

  Environment

  570

  Service Children's Schools3

  Defence

  1,000

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Social Security

  68,200

  Social Security Contributions Unit

  Social Security

  6,200

  Valuation Office

  Inland Revenue

  5,700

  Youth Treatment Service

  Health

  220

  Ordnance Survey

  Northern Ireland

  200

  Rating Division

  Northern Ireland

  270

  Social Security Operations 29 in number

  Northern Ireland

  5,000

  Customs and Excise4

  2

  26,900

  Inland Revenue4 (excluding Valuation Office)

  2

  60,400

  5201,790

  1 Figures based on staff in post as at 1 April 1990.

  2 Indicates an agency candidate which is an independent Government Department.

  3 Defence Support Agency. Figure does not include service personnel.

  4 Moving towards operating fully on next steps lines, as set out in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement of 25 July 1990.

  5 Plus numbers in the Child Support Agency, when known.

  Many other areas of government are under consideration, including prisons, and other parts, of the Ministry of defence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Broadcasting Ownership
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to announce the supplementary ownership rules which he proposes to implement by order under schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The ownership rules will contain the following provisions:

  (a) it will be permissible for one body to hold a controlling interest in two regional Channel 3 licences as long as they are not both large. Of the 15 regional Channel 3 areas, we shall designate the top nine (in terms of NAR share) as large, and the bottom six as small.

  (b) in relation to regional Channel 3, national Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences, where a person owns two licences (in the case of regional Channel 3) or one licence (in the case of national Channel 3 or Channel 5) he will be permitted to have a maximum of a 20 per cent stake in one further such licence, and a maximum stake of 5 per cent. in any further licences.
  86
  staff employed is as follows. Target dates for the establishment of these activities are a matter for the responsible Minister.

  (c) where a person has no controlling interest in any licence, he will nevertheless be permitted to have more that a 20 per cent. interest in one further such licence and maximum of a 5 percent. Interest in any further licences.

  (d) national newspaper proprietors will not be permitted to have more than a 20 per cent. interest in any local radio licence. No national or local newspaper proprietor will be permitted to have more than a 20 per cent. interest in a domestic satellite service licence.

  (e) no public telecommunications operator will be permitted to have a controlling interest in any Channel 3, Channel 5, national radio or domestic satellite licence.

  (f) there will be a points scheme to indicate the maximum ownership permitted of local radio stations. All stations (with their associated channels) will be awarded points on the basis of their audience reach. It will be permissible to own stations which correspond to a maximum of 15 per cent. of the total number of points in the system.

  I have placed a more detailed set of proposals in the Library. I hope to place an Order before the House in December.

  Deportation
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been deported after serving sentences in British prisons for the last five years for which figures are available.
  87
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures in the form requested have been held centrally only since September 1986.

  The figures in the table relate to deportations under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971, where recommendation for deportation made by a court was part of a custodial sentence, and under section 3(5)(b) of that Act where deportation on conducive grounds was deemed to be appropriate following a custodial sentence.

  Section 3(6)

  Section 3(5)(b)

  Total

  1987

  38

  3

  41

  1988

  52

  9

  61

  1989

  69

  6

  75

  Prisoners (Suicides)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) suicides and (b) attempted suicides for (i) prisoners and (ii) those on remand in prison for each year for 1985 to 1989.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The number of deaths at their own hand of inmates at Her Majesty's prison service establishments for each year from 1985 to 1989 is shown in the table. A figure is also given for the number of incidents of self-injury in 1989 which were regarded as attempted suicide. Information about the status of inmates who attempted suicide is not readily available. Only partial information is available on the number of suicide attempts in earlier years.

  Number of deaths at own hand of inmates at Her Majesty's Prison

  Service establishments 1985–1989

  Deaths at Own Hand1

  Year

  Unconvicted

  Convicted

  Total

  Attempted suicides

  1985

  19(16)

  10(7)

  29(23)

  —

  1986

  14(12)

  7(5)

  21(17)

  —

  1987

  229(28)

  17(14)

  46(42)

  —

  1988

  21(19)

  16(12)

  37(31)

  —

  1989

  27(18)

  21(16)

  48(34)

  543

  1 The figures in brackets denote number of deaths for which a verdict of suicide was returned at the coroner's inquest.

  2 Includes one inmate who was detained under the Immigration Act and who was not therefore on remand.

  Electoral Records
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the legal provisions in addition to the Representation of the People Act 1983 which entitle a person to obtain access to the parliamentary ballot papers and counterfoils and the

  Number of persons proceeded against for begging and sleeping out offences under Vagrancy Act 1824 in the Metropolitan Police District1 and remainder of England and Wales by result 1989

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  Total for sentence

  Conditional discharge

  Fine

  Sentence Probation order

  Immediate custody

  Other

  Metropolitan Police District1

  Begging

  1,256

  1,193

  1,193

  326

  841

  3

  —

  23

  Sleeping out

  12

  10

  10

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Remainder of England and Wales

  Begging

  146

  126

  126

  37

  87

  —

  —

  2

  Sleeping out

  12

  6

  6

  2

  3

  —

  —

  1

  88
  marked electoral registers, returns, declarations and other election documents in the custody of a returning officer or the Clerk of the Crown.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The only statutory provisions concerning the retention of, access to and disposal of the documents used at a parliamentary election are those laid down in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.

  Shotguns
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many semi-automatic and pump action shotguns have been certified as shotguns after being modified from section 1 firearms classification under the terms of the Firearms Act 1988, up until the latest available date or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the masters of the proof houses that, to date, approximately 47,000 adapted smooth-bore guns have been certified by the proof houses so as to enable the guns to be retained on a shot gun certificate. 30,000 of these were dealt with in Birmingham and the remainder in London.

  Open Prisons (Escapes)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners convicted of drug and drug-related offences have absconded from open prisons in each of the past three years; how many were recaptured; and which open prisons were involved.

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

  Vagrancy Act
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) prosecuted and convicted in the Metropolitan and City of London police districts in the year ended December 1989 under the Vagrancy Act 1824 for (i) begging and (ii) sleeping out, (b) prosecuted and convicted in the rest of England and Wales in the same period for the same offences; and how many people at (a) and (b) above (1) were fined, (2) received custodial sentences, (3) served custodial sentences in default of payment of fines, (4) received conditional discharges and (5) received probation orders, respectively.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information available is given in the table. Figures are not available separately for receptions into prison service establishments in default of payment of a fine for offences of begging and sleeping out.
  89

  Total proceeded against

  Total found guilty

  Total for sentence

  Conditional discharge

  Fine

  Sentence Probation order

  Immediate custody

  Other

  England and Wales

  Begging

  1,402

  1,319

  1,319

  363

  928

  3

  —

  25

  Sleeping out

  24

  16

  16

  2

  13

  —

  —

  1

  1 Including the City of London.

  Anti-Semitic Incidents
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether statistics are kept on incidents of an anti-Semitic nature; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Metropolitan police maintain specific statistics on anti-semitic incidents as part of their records on all racially motivated attacks. Other police forces collect statistics on racial attacks without separate identification of the ethnicity of all victims. The Government remain committed to taking effective action against all forms of racial violence. The desecration of Jewish cemeteries is a particularly distressing example of such behaviour.

  The Government and the Association of Chief Police Officers are keeping the situation under constant review, and have had meetings with the Board of Deputies of British Jews to assess the problem. Police forces are aware of the importance of effective liaison with local Jewish community groups, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is monitoring the position closely.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the finances available to his Department and/or allocated by his Department to combat alcohol misuse in each of the financial years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90, and indicate the amounts initially available in 1990–91, and any additional sums made available by his Department for this purpose since the start of the financial year.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Football
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to make an order bringing into force section 13 of the Football Spectators Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  PC Blakelock (Murder)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his review of the cases of the three persons convicted of the murder of Police Constable Blakelock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have been considering very carefully a number of representations which have been made to me about the case of Mr. Mark Braithwaite, Mr. Engin Raghip and Mr. Winston Silcott. Each was convicted of murder and riot.

  I would normally only consider intervening in a case if there were presented to me some new evidence or other consideration of substance which had not previously been before the courts and which might cast doubts on the safety of the conviction.
  90
  Amongst the matters submitted to me was a statement from a psychologist who had, at the request of the defence, assessed Mr. Raghip's mental condition before his trial. The psychologist now says that, in the light of subsequent tests carried out by another psychologist, he now regards the assessment which he then made of Mr. Raghip's mental condition as mistaken. He now takes the view that had he, at the time of the trial, been aware of the later findings of the other psychologist whose tests were carried out in what he regards as more appropriate circumstances than those which he himself had encountered, he would have agreed that Mr. Raghip possessed a significant degree of mental incapacity, suggestibility and compliance.

  The psychologist's changed view amounts to fresh material which I think it right that the Court of Appeal should have the opportunity to consider.

  Accordingly, in the exercise of my powers under section 17(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, I have today referred the case of Engin Raghip to the Court of Appeal for determination in respect of conviction. Under the provisions of that section, his case now falls to be treated for all purposes as an appeal to the court by Mr. Raghip himself, and it will be for those representing Mr. Raghip to seek to raise with the Court of Appeal any matters which they feel may be of relevance to his appeal.

  I have also looked very carefully at the representations made on behalf of Mr. Mark Braithwaite and Mr. Winston Silcott, but I have found no grounds on which I would be justified in taking any action to intervene in respect of their convictions. I am, however, always prepared to consider any further representations about the safety of these convictions.

  Independent Programmes (Rights)
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he now proposes in the light of the conclusion of the Director General of Fair Trading that he would not be making a formal reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the subject of the acquisition by broadcasters of rights in indpendently produced programmes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Concern has been expressed about the common practice of broadcasters who require independent producers to assign their rights in programmes to them. In April 1990, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asked the Director General of Fair Trading to consider whether action under competition legislation would be justified.

  After detailed investigation, the Director General advised that there was no justification for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He found that broadcasters typically take all the rights because they provide 100 per cent. funding, and thus take all the risks. Channel 4 indicated that they were always willing to contemplate contracts which conferred exploitation rights on the independent producer, with some offsetting adjustments in funding. The director general concluded,

  91
  however, that in practice few independents could offer a share of costs in exchange for rights, but that this was not the fault of the broadcasters, who were not thereby abusing their dominant power.

  In the light of this advice, we see no case for further investigation or for statutory intervention, either through primary legislation or through the Order to be made under section 16(5) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 which will define independent production. Intervention would have serious implications for broadcasting and competition policy, copyright law and practice, and United Kingdom trade, and the Government are not convinced that it would be beneficial. Its effects on the broadcasters and independent producers themselves in a time of change and increasing competition cannot be foreseen.

  The issue is not, however, necessarily closed for ever. The market in independent productions will inevitably change as the 25 per cent. quota takes effect and new broadcasters play a greater part in the market. An investigation under competition legislation is always a possibility if abuses emerge and the criteria for investigation are met.

  Rates (Non-payment)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give, broken down into the smallest district or region available, the numbers of people(a) arrested and (b) imprisoned for non-payment of (i) domestic and (ii) industrial and commercial rates in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 30 November 1990]: The only readily available information is on prisoners committed for non-payment of rates of all types. This is published annually in "Prison statistics England and Wales" (table 6·3 of the latest volume, for 1989, Cm 1221), copies of which are in the Library.

  Details of the local authority area are not recorded centrally. However, the table gives details, for 1989, of the counties in which the committing courts are situated. Similar information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Males aged under 17 remanded into prison service establishments who were first received on remand into Cardiff or Swansea prisons:

  by age and establishment 1987–89

  Establishment

  1987

  1988

  11989

  15

  16

  15

  16

  15

  16

  Cardiff

  8

  26

  10

  32

  16

  31

  Swansea

  6

  23

  9

  9

  11

  8

  1 Provisional figures.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for the last available year(a) the amount of toxic waste imported in total and by port and (b) the country of origin and destination of toxic waste imports by port, together with the nature of the toxic waste in each case.
  92

  Persons received into prison service establishments in England and Wales having been committed to custody for non-payment of rates:

  by county of court committing, 1989

  Number

  Magistrates' court (county):

  Avon

  5

  Bedford

  3

  Berkshire

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Cheshire

  6

  Cornwall

  1

  Derbyshire

  6

  Devonshire

  1

  Dorsetshire

  1

  East Sussex

  2

  Essex

  6

  Greater London

  23

  Greater Manchester

  5

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Humberside

  8

  Kent

  1

  Lancashire

  1

  Leicestershire

  1

  Merseyside

  6

  Norfolk

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  Shropshire

  2

  Somerset

  1

  South Yorkshire

  6

  Staffordshire

  6

  Suffolk

  1

  West Midland

  12

  West Yorkshire

  16

  Wiltshire

  1

  Court not recorded

  69

  All courts

  197

  Prisons
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many young people aged(a) 15 years and (b) 16 years were remanded in custody at Swansea prison in each of the last three years;

  (2) how many young people aged (a) 15 years and (b)16 years were remanded in custody at Cardiff prison in each of the last three years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 29 November 1990]: The readily available information is given in the table.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information in respect of imports through English ports for the year to 31 March 1990 is shown in the following table.

  I will write to the hon. Member about the second part of his question.

  Similar information in respect of imports to Wales was given in the reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 22 November at columns 191–194.
  93

  Imports of toxic waste

  Port

  Amount

  (tonnes)

  Chatham

  409

  Dartford

  1,137

  Dover

  5,160

  Felixstowe

  8,718

  Fleetwood

  154

  Flixborough

  4,237

  Gravesend

  25

  Grimsby

  39

  Harwich

  150

  Heysham

  724

  Immingham

  8,752

  Ipswich

  185

  Liverpool

  754

  Middlesbrough

  203

  Poole

  30

  Portsmouth

  2

  Purfleet

  12

  Ramsgate

  1,877

  City grant for housing projects as at 3 December 1990

  Local authority area and name of project

  Grant approved

  Total project cost

  Number of dwellings

  £

  £

  Birmingham

  Bordsley Village Initiative

  3,720,603

  14,711,103

  264

  Bordsley Village, Phase 1

  1,401,257

  6,602,014

  118

  Browning Street Ladywood

  902,000

  4,277,000

  103

  Blackburn

  Queens Park Deck Flats, Blackburn

  738,620

  4,038,620

  90

  Housing and Urban Park, Lower Audley

  1,209,000

  7,216,885

  138

  Bennington Street Housing, Lower Audley

  707,000

  4,284,000

  70

  Atlantic Mill Site

  377,123

  1,885,123

  49

  London Road, Blackburn

  688,407

  3,840,407

  61

  Bolton

  Park/Persian Mill, Bolton Mk2

  398,233

  3,367,638

  72

  Prospect Mills Housing

  649,773

  2,242,773

  75

  Woodside Mills

  550,983

  4,486,983

  96

  Frederick Street, Farnworth

  202,820

  1,968,820

  75

  Breightmet Housing Estate, Bolton

  284,600

  2,826,600

  70

  Stretton Road Housing, Bolton

  308,000

  2,188,000

  71

  Rose Hill Bolton

  559,987

  3,042,987

  67

  Bradford

  Lower Grange, Bradford

  2,652,707

  13,465,207

  308

  Midland Road, Bradford

  136,860

  856,860

  24

  Holroyd Hill/Wibsey Bank

  700,000

  5,236,000

  106

  Bristol

  24–32 Wilson Street, Housing, Bristol

  293,416

  1,253,916

  26

  Calderdale

  Abbey Park

  364,516

  2,361,516

  75

  Coventry

  Harnall Lane Housing, Coventry

  592,000

  3,667,046

  67

  Gateshead

  Moore Street Gateshead

  30,750

  241,150

  7

  Hartlepool

  Owton Manor, Hartlepool

  570,000

  2,024,000

  90

  Manchester

  Portland Mews, Manchester

  451,000

  2,358,000

  66

  Every Street Housing Scheme

  456,615

  2,130,615

  60

  Bell Crescent Housing, Manchester

  621,700

  2,995,700

  80

  Newcastle

  Cowgate Renewal Project, Newcastle

  564,885

  2,186,885

  81

  Dorrington Road Flats

  1,087,000

  3,904,400

  110

  94

  Port

  Amount

  (tonnes)

  Seaforth

  73

  Southampton

  5

  Teesport

  83

  Tilbury

  16

  Great Yarmouth

  8

  GRAND TOTAL

  32,751

  City Grant
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the secretary of state for the Environment if he will list any projects and amounts of city grant which has been given for housing purposes.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is as follows. in addition to the grants listed, a further £.4·5 million has been approved for mixed use developments which include a housing element.
  95

  Local authority area and name of project

  Grant approved

  Total project cost

  Number of dwellings

  £

  £

  North Tyneside

  Grosvenor Mews, North Shields

  64,620

  317,620

  10

  Coach Lane, North Shields

  88,892

  531,492

  22

  Nottingham

  Bitterlings Factory Redevelopment, Mk2, Nottingham

  93,123

  556,123

  15

  Plymouth

  Camden Street Housing, Plymouth

  45,000

  326,687

  8

  Jubilee Terrace Housing, Plymouth

  130,766

  723,766

  15

  Rotherham

  Roger Street Development

  169,654

  1,107,154

  34

  Salford

  Hazel Avenue and Acme Mill Housing Development

  580,000

  3,495,000

  97

  Brandsby Gardens, Salford

  100,000

  685,250

  15

  Kersal Vale, Salford (Riverdale)

  5,152,000

  31,354,000

  483

  Sandwell

  Windmill Lane, Smethwick

  775,000

  3,061,000

  87

  South Tyneside

  Mowbray Court South Shields

  100,693

  512,193

  14

  St. Helens

  Green Bank, Ravenhead

  6,330,000

  25,680,000

  309

  Sunderland

  Baronshill Housing Phase 2, Sunderland

  553,072

  2,623,072

  72

  Baronshill

  438,445

  1,554,445

  48

  Ascot Court, Sunderland, Phase 4

  54,910

  362,710

  11

  Gilley Law, Sunderland

  1,221,447

  5,340,447

  149

  Ascot Court, Phase 3, Farringdon

  100,806

  503,806

  24

  Wigan

  Worsley Mesnes Housing, Wigan

  1,724,958

  7,687,458

  126

  Totals

  38,943,241

  196,082,471

  4,058

SCOTLAND

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to Greater Glasgow health board of the management authority's review of its acute services.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board's review of its acute services involves a wide range of the board's medical and administrative staff. It would be impossible to cost their work on the strategy separately from their other duties.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State or Scotland if he will give for each of the last 12 months the total number of agency nursing staff employed by the Greater Glasgow health board both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of trained nurses.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Alcohol Misuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the finances available to his Department and/or allocated by his Department to combat alcohol
  96
  misuse in each of the financial years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 and indicate the amounts initially available in 1990–91, and any additional sums made available by his Department for this purpose since the start of the financial year.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In addition to research and the general allocations made to health boards, the Scottish Home and Health Department provides grant support to the Scottish Council on Alcohol, the national voluntary organisation concerned with alcohol problems, and funds the Scottish Health Education Group. The Scottish Education Department gives grants to voluntary and other organisations under sections 9 and 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Industry Department for Scotland supports local alcohol-related projects under the urban programme. In addition, the Scottish Home and Health Department and the Scottish Education Department jointly fund the alcohol studies centre at Paisley college of technology. Expenditure in the last three financial years and estimated expenditure in 1990–91 is set out in the table below. No additional allocations have been made in 1990–91 since the start of the financial year.
  97

  Funding provided by Scottish Office specifically to combat alcohol misuse

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Scottish Council on Alcohol

  120,000

  133,000

  120,000

  116,000

  Alcohol Studies Centre

  76,600

  87,200

  89,300

  124,400

  Grants under Sections 9 & 10 of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968

  75,500

  37,700

  80,100

  256,600

  Grants under Urban Programme

  400,600

  335,000

  369,100

  258,800

  Scottish Health Education Group

  213,800

  205,400

  276,100

  340,000

  Total

  886,500

  798,300

  934,600

  1,095,800

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the total Government expenditure on the upkeep, care and protection of historic buildings and monuments in Scotland in each year since 1980.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 November 1990]: Gross expenditure by the Scottish Development Department on the conservation and presentation of historic buildings and monuments (including the royal parks) in Scotland since 1980 was as follows:

  £ million

  1980–81

  4·983

  1981–82

  6·696

  1982–83

  6·850

  1983–84

  7·924

  1984–85

  8·610

  1985–86

  9·801

  1986–87

  9·681

  1987–88

  12·225

  1988–89

  14·775

  1989–90

  18·608

  Planned gross expenditure in 1990–91 is £19·8 million.

  Steel
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any representations from British Steel about its long-term plans for the quench and temper facility at Clydesdale and the finishing facility at the Imperial works.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: When my right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of British Steel, he told him that British Steel intended, subject to concluding satisfactory arrangements, to continue operations at the Imperial works. Imperial would be supplied with lower cost pipe from abroad, some of which would be heat treated initially at the quench and temper plant at Clydesdale.

  Erskine Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take concerning finances of the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: Arrangements for the financing of the bridge beyond the end of the tolling period in 1991 are under consideration. No decision has yet been taken.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to(a) end or (b) increase tolls on the Erskine bridge.
  98
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: No decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for overall operating deficit on Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: The latest published account for 1988–89 shows an operating surplus for the year of £971,208.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to write off accumulated debt on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: Future financing arrangements for the Erskine bridge are under consideration.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest accumulated debt on the Erskine bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: The figure shown as the accumulated deficiency in the latest published account for 1988–89 is £84,889,183.

TRANSPORT

  A20
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made since January in implementing the decisions to improve the A20 road between Folkestone and Dover.

  Mr. Chope
  Construction of part of the new A20 between Folkestone and Court wood started in October. Design is continuing on the remaining part.

  The compulsory purchase order for the section between Court wood and Dover was made in July. Land acquisition and rehousing of Dover district council's tenants affected by the scheme are under way.

  We are on programme for completion of the whole length from Folkestone to Dover by the planned opening of the channel tunnel in mid-1993.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the fastest travelling time from(a) Chester, (b) Cardiff, (c) Newport, (d) Swansea and (e) Holyhead for (i) freight and (ii) passengers to the channel rail tunnel; and if he will make a statement.
  99
  Mr. McLoughlin
  British Rail's current estimate of the fastest travelling times for passenger trains from the destinations requested to the United Kingdom portal of the channel tunnel is as follows:

  Origin

  Time (hours)

  Chester

  4¼

  Cardiff

  4¼

  Newport

  4

  Swansea

  5¼

  Holyhead

  5¼

  These estimates may of course change between now and the opening of the tunnel in 1993.

  British Rail does not have equivalent figures for freight trains, for which reliability of delivery will be more important than journey time.

  A2
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress made since February in implementing the decision to dual the A2 road between Lydden and Dover.

  Mr. Chope
  Following the addition of the A2 Lydden (B2060)—Dover improvement scheme to the trunk road programme in February it was announced in September that preparation of the scheme would be open to consultant competition. Arrangements for this are in hand with a view to inviting competitive bids from selected consultants as soon as possible in the new year. A further announcement will be made following the appointment of the successful firm.

  A1
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average volume of daily traffic using the A1 between Scotch Corner and Newcastle over the past decade; and when work to convert the A1 to a three-way carriageway will commence.

  Mr. Chope
  The annual average daily traffic figures show:

  1981

  1990

  Scotch Corner

  16,350

  28,900

  Chester-le-Street

  26,000

  39,800

  Tyne and Wear

  40,800

  64,400

  The Tyne and Wear section of the A1(M) is currently three-lane carriageway. A study of the route from Scotch Corner to Tyneside was announced in "Roads for Prosperity". Consultants are yet to be appointed.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authorities which(a) made inquiries following publication of traffic advisory leaflet 2/90 and (b) are spending public money on introducing speed control humps as traffic calming measures.

  Mr. Chope
  (a) Since the traffic advisory unit leaflet was published on 15 November, copies have been sent to all local highway authorities. Many enquiries and requests for further copies have been received but no central record of such contracts is maintained.
  100
  (b) This information is not held centrally.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average time taken for an applicant for a driving test to remain on the waiting list in each area in Wales.

  Mr. Chope
  The average waiting times for L tests at Welsh driving test centres are as follows:

  Centre

  Average Waiting Time

  (Weeks)

  Abergavenny

  8

  Aberystwyth1

  2

  Ammanford

  3

  Bala1

  9

  Bangor

  2

  Barry1

  12

  Brecon1

  1

  Bridgend

  3

  Cardiff East

  3

  Cardiff West

  9

  Cardigan1

  4

  Carmarthen1

  2

  Cwmbran

  2

  Haverfordwest

  3

  Holyhead1

  10

  Lampeter

  1

  Llandrindod Wells1

  4

  Llandudno1

  2

  Llanelli

  5

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2

  Milford Haven1

  2

  Mold

  13

  Monmouth1

  9

  Newport

  7

  Newtown

  4

  Pembroke Dock1

  3

  Pontypridd

  11

  Pwllheli1

  1

  Rhyl

  1

  Swansea

  7

  Treorchy1

  9

  Wrexham

  8

  1 Occasional centres staffed only as and when required.

  M66, Denton
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents have occurred at the junction of the M67 and M66 in Denton since the M66 opened; and when work will commence to improve that junction.

  Mr. Chope
  Since the M66 opened on 28 April 1989, there have been 16 accidents involving personal injury, only one of which was serious, and 30 involving damage only. Work on the junction improvement is programmed to start in April 1991.

  Electrification, Cheshire
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reasons for the delay in allowing Cheshire county council to borrow £800,000 for its share of the costs of the Hooton to Ellesmere Port and Chester electrification scheme.

  Mr. Freeman
  The total cost of this project is about £10 million spread over three years. Even if credit approvals
  101
  could be made available this year, it would not make sense to do so unless the rest of the project could be financed. I am considering whether adequate resources could be made available for the scheme as a whole and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Wheel Clamping Firms (Licensing)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now consider a system of licensing for wheel clamping firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) on 22 November at column 169.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether people with Alzheimer's disease are accepted as being terminally ill when assessing income support rates for people in nursing homes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The level of income support payable depends on the type of care the nursing home is providing for the claimant. The adjudication officer must be satisfied that the home is recognised by the registration authority as able to provide terminal care and that the resident is receiving such care before the higher limit can apply.

  Income Support Deductions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support deductions are currently being made for(a) poll tax arrears, (b) social fund loan payments, (c) fuel payment arrears and (d) any other purposes; and if he will give a breakdown of these by social security office throughout the country.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of deductions from income support for arrears of community charge by local office was given in the reply by my hon. Friend the former Under-Secretary of State on 22 October to the hon. Member for Coventry South-East (Mr. Nellist) at column 78. The latest available information for other types of deduction is shown in the tables; for these, information by local social security office is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1

  Deductions from Income Support

  (Social Fund repayments, accommodation, fuel and water charges)

  Purpose

  Number of deductions1

  Date

  Community charge arrears

  9,112

  31 August 1990

  Social Fund loan repayments

  430,000

  31 October 1990

  Fuel

  2246,691

  31 August 1990

  Other purposes

  134,671

  31 August 1990

  1The information is not routinely published, it derives from the Department's management information system and, with the exception of social fund loan repayments, is obtained from a quarterly count of deductions in action. Data on social fund loan repayments are collected monthly.

  2Some deductions for fuel charges cover current consumption costs alone because the arrears have been cleared. It is not possible to identify only those cases with continuing arrears.

  102

  Table 2

  Recovery of overpaid benefit, Voluntary Unemployment deductions

  Purpose

  Number of deductions

  Recovery of overpaid benefit

  79,485

  Voluntary unemployment deductions

  31,574

  Note: The information derives from table 10 of the Annual Statistical Enquiry in May 1989, a copy of which is in the Library.

  19-year-olds (Non-advanced Education)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what financial assistance his Department provides for 19-year-olds in full-time non-advanced education; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what compensatory financial assistance his Department provides to families where parents are in receipt of income support and whose child is aged 19 years or older and in full-time non-advanced education;

  (3) what financial assistance his Department provides to young people aged 19 years or older who are living independently and are in full-time non-advanced education.

  Miss Widdecombe
  These young people should apply to the local education authorities or the further education institution at which they study for financial assistance. They or their families claiming for them are not entitled to income support but for certain exceptions, including lone parent and disabled students.

DEFENCE

  HMS Warspite
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications of the decommissioning of HMS Warspite.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The decision to decommission HMS Warspite followed the announcement on 25 July by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, in which he envisaged, in addition to Trident, a future submarine force of around 16 boats, some three quarters of which would be nuclear-powered. This reduction in submarine force levels is to be achieved by decommissioning older, less capable boats, such as HMS Warspite, while retaining the more modern ones in service.

  Military Air Crashes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he proposes to take to speed up publication of reports from boards of inquiry into fatal military air crashes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The summaries of such reports are not published until all relevant investigations, including any coroners' inquests or fatal accident inquiries, are complete. Once these conditions are met, we aim for the earliest possible publication.

  NATO
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what involvement his Department has had with NATO undercover operations which countenance terrorism.
  103
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on operational matters of this nature. But I can assure the hon. Member that neither Her Majesty's Government nor NATO would countenance any operations involving terrorism in any way.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role is envisaged for NATO in conciliation arrangements in respect of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Paris CSCE summit recommended the establishment of mechanisms for the prevention and resolution of conflicts between CSCE participants, including possible conciliation arrangements. These matters will be further discussed shortly but I think it unlikely that NATO as such would have a role in them.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans have been made for the disposal of the Vanguard class nuclear-powered submarine fleet, subsequent to its decommissioning.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Vanguard class submarines are expected to remain in service until well into the next century.

  SA80 Rifle
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems are being experienced with the use of the SA80 rifle.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  When SA80 entered service experience showed that modifications to certain components would improve the strength and reliability of the weapon whilst retaining the greater accuracy and other advantages of the SA80 over its predecessors. These have been incorporated into a modification programme which is being implemented.

  Naval Procurement
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current naval procurement programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We currently have nine type 23 frigates on order and expect to invite tenders for the next batch within the next few months. Tenders for additional single role minehunters are being assessed; two auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels are under construction. The Government remain committed to a four-boat Trident force and we have just placed an order for the third Vanguard class submarine. The first Upholder class conventional submarine is undergoing final acceptance trials now and will be accepted into service very shortly. The Sea Harrier capability update and EH101 (Merlin) helicopter programmes are proceeding.

  Sea Systems Controllerate
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed centralising of the sea systems controllerate with particular regard to the costing and timetable of such a move.
  104
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It remains our intention to collocate the sea systems controllerate as soon as practicable, and with a proper consideration of all the costs.

  Sea King Helicopters
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place the order for additional search and rescue Sea King helicopters to replace the Wessex helicopters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No decision has yet been taken on a replacement for the Wessex, which continues to make a valuable contribution to the SAR service. As part of our normal equipment planning process, we are considering the case for its replacement. I cannot, at this stage, say whether we shall need new helicopters.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the additional costs to his departmental budget caused by the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Tom King
  Revised Winter Supplementary Estimates being submitted to the House for approval include £480 million for additional costs so far identified arising from the Gulf crisis.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current situation of British forces in the Gulf.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role of the British troops in the Gulf.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what boots are being worn by British forces serving under desert conditions in the Gulf;

  (2) whether desert boots have been issued to British forces serving under desert conditions in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Normal issue combat boots are being worn by British forces in the Gulf for duty purposes, while lightweight boots have been issued for off duty wear. In addition, limited quantities of a new desert combat boot have been trialled, and are currently in production. They will be issued as supplies become available.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British forces serving under desert conditions in the Gulf are required to purchase desert boots for their own use.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of fatalities involving British forces serving in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Two.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, giving such information as is available, those accidents that have occurred so far to British service personnel in the Gulf.
  105
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 November 1990]: The pilot of a Jaguar aircraft was killed when his aircraft crashed on 13 November. On 30 November a Royal Army Medical Corps corporal serving with 33 field hospital was killed in a shooting incident. There have been a number of other accidents, including one other involving the loss of an aircraft, in which service personnel have been injured, but it would not be practicable to provide a detailed list.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current manpower strength of the Territorial Army and Voluntary Reserve.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As at 30 September 1990 the strength of the Territorial Army, including the home service force, was 74,720.

  Armed Services (Insurance)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that members of the armed services are not disadvantaged when seeking life insurance cover or cover in relation to house purchase as a result of an international situation involving British military interests.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 23 November 1990 at column 234.

  Trident
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects Trident to be operational.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  As previously announced, it remains our intention to deploy Trident into operational service in the mid-1990s.

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the impacts upon local economies following reductions in forces following "Options for Change".

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Local economic and environmental factors will be taken fully into account.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now review his policy on compensation to service personnel who are suffering health problems as a result of their involvement in British nuclear tests.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 20 November,Official Report, column 79, he will set out the number of military and scientific staff sent to the United States of America to supervise and monitor the test; and if he will indicate to which Government data on the test will be made available, and under what conditions.
  106
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to give details of United Kingdom personnel who attend such tests. Data from the test is made available to the United States under the terms of the 1958 United States-United Kingdom agreement for mutual co-operation for defence purposes.

  RAF Exercises
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the titles, functions of and aircraft types involved in the RAF-sponsored exercises(a) on Salisbury plain between 15 and 19 May, (b) in mid-Wales between 13 and 19 July and (c) in East Lothian between 17 and 21 July.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Exercise STONE WARRIOR

  A combined Royal Air Force and 5 Airborne Brigade tactical exercise, on the occasion of the royal review of 5th Airborne Brigade, involving Hercules aircraft.

  (b) Exercise OSEX 90

  An offensive air support exercise, involving Harrier, Jaguar, A-10, Tornado and air defence aircraft.

  (c) Exercise RED LANYARD 2/90

  There is no record of a major Royal Air Force exercise in East Lothian between 17 and 21 July. However, Exercise Red Lanyard 2/90 was then in progress, affecting, among other areas, south west Scotland and the Borders, Red Lanyard 2/90 rehearsed 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment in its role as the lead parachute battalion of 5th Airborne Brigade and involved Hercules aircraft.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of aircraft whose noise levels were measured during the noise survey at RAF West Freugh in June 1990; and if he will list the range of flying speeds and heights for which noise level data were collected, for each type of aircraft.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) gave to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 10 July 1990 at column 191, which listed those aircraft involved in the survey which are common users of the United Kingdom low-flying system. Additionally, measurements were taken of noise levels from F15 and F16 aircraft which are not common users of the United Kingdom low-flying system. Further details of the survey will be published when results are available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to extend the noise insulation grant scheme around military airfields to(a) schools, (b) hospitals and (c) old people's homes.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence's noise insulation grant scheme is designed to provide a measure of relief from the worst effects of military aircraft noise for residents when in their homes. A "home" may be a
  107
  residential home for the elderly or permanent living accommodation in a school or hospital. Apart from that circumstance, accommodation in schools and hospitals is not included within the scope of the scheme. However, as previously announced by my hon. Friend the then Minister for Roads and Traffic on 28 June 1989 at column 475, the possible extension of the statutory schemes (which the Ministry of Defence follows administratively) to include such accommodation is being studied by an inter-departmental group led by the Department of Transport. I understand that the group expect to submit their report in the first quarter of 1991.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ear protection was provided to(a) Ministry of Defence personnel and (b) civilian contractor personnel operating noise measurement and tracking equipment on the ground during the military aircraft noise survey at West Freugh in June.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Appropriate hearing protection was made available to personnel involved in this survey.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the maximum values of single noise events measured during the military aircraft noise survey at West Freugh in June will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No decision has yet been taken on the format in which the results of this study will be published.

  Exercise Border Fox
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopter low-level sorties were carried out during Exercise Border Fox in September; and how many of these took place on 16 September.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A total of 325 hours were flown by helicopters during Exercise Border Fox in September. It is not possible to give a breakdown of the proportion spent at low level; 16 September fell outside the exercise period and involved minimal flying.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of Exercise Border Fox.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The purpose of Exercise Border Fox was to practice the conduct of airmobile operations and forward observation.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if pilots are permitted to exceed the normal maximum cruising speed in the United Kingdom low-flying system in order to regain their planned timing on low-flying sorties.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes, although this should seldom be necessary since sorties are generally planned at speeds below the normal maximum cruising speed.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what minimum height the Belgian Air Force aircraft which paid an exchange visit to RAF Wattisham during October were permitted to fly over the United Kingdom.
  108
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Two hundred and fifty feet.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of the low-flying exercise centred on the Spadeadam range, scheduled to take place on 1 November; what types of aircraft and which units were involved; and how many sorties took place.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The exercise centred on the Spadeadam range on 1 November was designed to enable United States Air Force aircraft based in the United Kingdom and continental Europe to undertake electronic warfare training together. Such exercises regularly take place at various bases in Europe.

  The types of aircraft involved and their units were: A10s from 10th and 81st Tactical Fighter Wings (TFW); F-111s from 48th TFW; F-4Gs and F-16s from 52nd TFW; F-15s from 36th TFW; EF-111 s from 42nd ECS (Electronic Combat Squadron); and EC-130s from 43rd ECS; 38 sorties were flown.

  No general use of the United Kingdom low-flying system was authorised for non-UK based aircraft.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there have been any instances since 1979 in which a request from an hon. Member for low flying avoidance status to be applied to a location in his or her constituency has been granted.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if pilots are permitted to book into low-flying areas in which the actual or forecast cloudbase or visibility do not meet the minima laid down for visual low flying.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes. Authorising officers and air crew are, however, responsible for ensuring that any proposed sortie can be safely carried out in the light of the prevailing weather conditions and in accordance with low-flying regulations.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cuts in Royal Air Force fast jet flying hours have been applied as a result of the defence spending economies announced on 31 July.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been no cuts in flying hours as a result of these measures.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the purpose of the fast jet low-flying activity scheduled to take place on 2 September in northern England; what types of aircraft and which units were involved; how many sorties took place on each day; and if the Spadeadam range was specially activated for this activity;

  (2) what was the purpose of the fast jet low-flying activity scheduled took take place on bank holiday Monday, 27 August, in northern England and Scotland.; what types of aircraft and which units were involved; how many sorties took place on each day; and if the Spadeadam range was specially activated for this activity.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Low-flying training in northern England and Scotland was exceptionally authorised on bank holiday Monday 27 August and on Sunday 2 September for air crew undertaking training connected with our current commitment in the Gulf. In the event, no such flying took place on either date.
  109
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what way the southern boundary of low flying area 13 has been altered since July; and what was the purpose of the alteration.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The southern boundary of LFA 13 has been adjusted northwards to remove an area not required for the operation of the RAF Spadeadam range.

  Skyguard Radar
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any Skyguard radars were involved in the mobile threat emitter equipment deployments listed in his reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire of 31 October,Official Report, column 626.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes, in the deployment to East Lothian between 17 and 21 July 1990.

  Aircraft Exercises
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if aircraft are permitted to release chaff outside Ministry of Defence-owned land in the vicinity of Spadeadam range.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes, in strictly limited quantities and subject to other restrictions imposed in range orders.

  Wiley Sike Weapons Range
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the dropping of practice bombs on the Wiley Sike air weapons range was first authorised; and what use of the facility has been made by Royal Air Force aircraft in each year since its establishment.

  Date

  Aircraft type

  Location

  Circumstances

  22 September 1989

  Tornado GR1

  Near Goose Bay, Canada

  Tree strike during operational low-flying training sortie

  7 December 1989

  Puma

  Belize

  Hit a single wire at 60 feet while climbing from a forward airstrip

  30 January 1990

  Puma

  Bomoen, Norway

  Hit a logging wire while climbing from a field site with an underslung load

  16 August 1990

  Wessex

  Northern Ireland

  Hit a wire with the tail wheel while climbing from a field landing site

  12 October 1990

  Jaguar GR1a

  RAF Coltishall

  Hit approach lights on landing

  23 October 1990

  Tornado GR1

  Northern Scotland

  Wire-strike on operational low-flying training sortie

  26 November 1990

  Tornado GR1

  Southern Scotland

  Wire-strike on operational low-flying training sortie

  Shackleton Aircraft
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the occasions since 1985 on which Shackleton aircraft have been(a) placed on standby for search and rescue operations and (b) used during search and rescue operations;

  (2) what secondary roles are performed by RAF Shackleton aircraft apart from flare-dropping for search and rescue operations.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  we do not have records of the number of times Shackleton aircraft have been placed on standby for search and rescue (SAR) operations since 1985. the table lists the occasions since 1985 when Shackleton aircraft have been used for SRC operations:
  110
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The dropping of practice bombs on the Wiley Sike air weapons range was first authorised in 1983. Since then the range has been used by the RAF for this purpose as follows:

  Days

  1983

  4

  1984

  9

  1985

  4

  1986

  6

  1987

  4

  1988

  6

  1989

  15

  Fuel Jettisoning Areas
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of the authorised fuel jettisoning areas for military aircraft in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  There are no such specifically authorised areas.

  RAF Aircraft (Accidents)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all incidents since August 1989 in which Royal Air Force aircraft have struck objects on the ground during flight but have subsequently landed successfully, giving the date, aircraft type, location and circumstances of each case.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information requested is in the table. Occurrences involving helicopters landing or hovering in the field are omitted.

  Date

  Mission

  15 May 1986

  A Shackleton aircraft provided top cover for a SAR helicopter after an aircraft ditched in the sea.

  15 July 1986

  A Shackleton aircraft located an officer who had ejected from an RAF Lightning seven nautical miles north of Whitby and helped direct a SAR helicopter to him.

  8 October 1986

  A Shackleton aircraft assisted in the search for a missing aircraft.

  22–24 April 1987

  Shackleton aircraft flew four missions as on-scene commander during the search for the wreckage and casualties from an RAF Buccaneer which had crashed 30 nautical miles east of Wick.

  2 and 8 July 1987

  On each occasion a Shackleton aircraft provided top cover for a SAR helicopter attending an incident at sea.

  111

  Date

  Mission

  3 October 1988

  A Shackleton aircraft provided top cover for a SAR helicopter attending a medical rescue from a boat.

  28 October 1988

  A Shackleton aircraft assisted in the search for a body at sea.

  8 November 1988

  A Shackleton aircraft was used to search for the source of a distress signal beacon.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement outlining the present and future financing arrangements for Britain's share of the European fighter aircraft costs.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Within the financial limit set out in the intergovernmental EFA development memorandum of understanding, funds are available for the United Kingdom's share of work undertaken in the full development phase of EFA. Financial arrangements for subsequent phases will depend on the form of arrangements put in place to cover the production of EFA.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of commitment to the development and purchase of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 29 October 1990 at column 413.

  Arms Control Verification
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to increase the expertise available to his Department on verification of arms control agreements following the completion of the treaty of Paris on conventional forces in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 6 March to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) at column 620. The joint arms control implementation group (JACIG) will become operational on 1 January 1991.

  Safety Inspections
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of occasions on which the principal specialist inspector from the Health and Safety Executive has visited atomic weapons establishment sites in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Full details of the number of occasions the principal specialist inspector from the 112
  Health and Safety Executive has visited Atomic Weapons Establishment sites over the last 10 years are not available but over the last four years the following visits have been made.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments

  Aldermaston

  Burghfield

  Foulness

  Total

  1987

  14

  6

  2

  22

  1988

  16

  1

  1

  18

  1989

  27

  3

  1

  31

  1990

  18

  3

  1

  22

  This is typical of previous years.

  The principal specialist inspector from the Health and Safety executive does not visit Atomic Weapons Establishment Cardiff. However, the factory inspector does, and has visited on three occasions during 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the principal specialist inspector visits atomic weapons establishment sites without informing atomic weapons establishment management prior to his visit; and what is his security clearance.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Health and Safety Executive principal inspector informs the Atomic Weapons Establishment prior to his visits. He holds high security clearance which gives him access to all parts of the establishment.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish the agreement that exists between his Department and the Health and Safety Executive regarding visits by the principal specialist inspector.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. The written agreement which exists is a classified document and is not for general publication.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current staffing level of the safety division of the atomic weapons establishment; what are the civil service grades of the members of the division; and what powers they possess to alter operations within the atomic weapons establishment on the grounds of safety.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  AWE safety division is staffed by industrial, scientific, technical, supervisory and administrative grades. The division, which is headed by director safety, provides safety services and advice to operating divisions and, if necessary, by direct recourse to the chief executive. It is not our policy to reveal the exact numbers on deployment of staff at AWE.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Lord Waddington
The Right Honourable David Charles Waddington, QC, having been created Baron Waddington, of Read in the County of Lancashire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Denham and the Lord Carlisle of Bucklow.

School Governors' Workload
2.48 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current estimate of the increased workload on school governors as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, a recent National Foundation for Educational Research survey found that the average amount of time spent by governors on their duties was 10 hours a term rising to 20 hours for heads and 30 for chairmen. Comparable figures are not available, but before the Education Reform Act the responsibilities were neither as demanding nor as rewarding as governors now feel them to be.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Compared with the amount of time that I spend on a governing body, I am rather surprised that those duties take so little time.
Are the Government anxious about the reported increase in membership turnover between 1988 and 1990? Are the Government content that 4 per cent. of posts were vacant at the time of the National Foundation for Educational Research survey and that representation of governing bodies is well enough spread throughout the community?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the NFER survey to which I referred shows that in the three terms to spring 1990 10 per cent. of the posts were vacant but that 15 per cent. of members had been appointed within the year, suggesting that the turnover is falling as governing bodies settle down in their new jobs.
With regard to the second question, we are disappointed that the spread is not as it should be, and that so few blue-collar workers and people from ethnic minorities are members of governing bodies. We hope to target those groups in the future.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how he will target the difficult areas? Is the Minister aware that it is more difficult in some schools in the central areas of our great cities—London, Birmingham and Manchester—to appoint
94
school governors? Is he satisfied that enough business people are coming forward in recognition of the difficult task in those schools?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty. The figure has not been calculated. I believe that in 1989 there was a campaign to appoint additional governors from a wider spread. However, we have no firm plans on how to achieve that.
The noble Baroness asked about composition. Most chairmen were agreed that the balance of people, skills and interests on their governing bodies were satisfactory. Compared with the population at large the governors surveyed were well qualified. Fifty-seven per cent. of chairmen and 44 per cent. of other governors held degrees or professional qualifications. One in five was employed in industry and commerce. The figures for chairmen were 14 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, has the Minister read the latest account of Labour Party education policy? The Labour Party intends to restore the stranglehold of local education authorities upon the schools. If we had the misfortune to have a Labour Government, is it not possible that people would not wish to be governors?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his supplementary question. I suffered some years ago when we became familiar with what was known as the little red book.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the Minister refers to new jobs. School governors and school managers have existed for the past 50 years. Time did not start with the passing of the Education Reform Act. Those people were in place generations before that and doing a good job.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is a new role for governors, not a new job.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what the new role is?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is specified in great detail in the Act. Perhaps I may say—with a slight insight, having been a governor of four schools over 20 years—that before the reforms the job was undemanding and dull; after the reforms it is extremely stimulating.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I must correct what the noble Lord said about the job of a school governor.
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may correct what the noble Lord has just said. Having been a school governor for many years in a variety of schools, I never found the job boring or undemanding. Is the Minister aware that there is the most serious shortage and the biggest turnover of school governors in inner city schools? Can he tell the House what the Government intend to do about the shortages in those schools where the need for highly-qualified governors is greatest?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness has great experience in these

95
matters. Now that the results of the Education Reform Act are settling down we believe that the problem will be self-correcting.

County Hall, London
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the failure of the London Residuary Body to find a viable use for the County Hall, London, they will now take steps to restore the building to London government use.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government do not accept that the London Residuary Body has failed to find viable new uses for County Hall. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is currently considering planning proposals for the County Hall buildings to be used as a hotel, a conference centre, as offices and for apartments and shops.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Government's planning circular No. 887, which states that the best use for a historic building is the use for which it was designed?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree that historic buildings should be used, which is also stated in the PPG.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend consult our mutual noble and learned friend on the Woolsack as to whether there is not a grave shortage of court space in central London?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a planning application is now receiving consideration but I am sure that the building could be put to many uses.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us have no interest in what finally happens at County Hall? However, can she tell us what the Goverment intend to do about the carbuncle, the monstrosity that is part of the GLC County Hall building? It is at the foot of Westminster Bridge and blocks the view of the entire river and the Palace of Westminster because some idiot put it up. What do the Government intend to do about it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is not the time for me to go into detail about the planning application. The noble Lord may know that when the inspector considered the original plans at the inquiry he was not unhappy about them in every detail, and the plans now submitted are much more acceptable, and the aspect will be much improved.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that whatever happens County Hall will never again become the symbol of socialist incompetence that it became under Labour Party rule?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, at an early age I was taught never to say, "Never again", and certainly not
96
in politics. No one on this side of the House wishes to see a resurrection of the kind of government that we had when the GLC existed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the Government to whom she belongs were gravely mistaken in abolishing the GLC, which was a medium of democratic government in London? Are not the Government ashamed of that action, which resulted in rendering the building unavailable for the purpose for which it was designed and to which it should be returned?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the assumption made by the noble Lord. The GLC was an expensive and unhelpful overhead for London government.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister consider using the proposed office space in County Hall for Members of both Houses of Parliament, for whom there is a considerable shortage of space? It might be possible to connect the Palace of Westminster and County Hall by means of a travelator underneath the Thames.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure that there is no shortage of ideas on the use to which County Hall should be put. Consideration is at present being given to putting it into the private sector for the use that I described in my Answer.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with proportional representation there would have been no real reason for abolishing the GLC?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there were good reasons for abolishing the GLC. As regards proportional representation, at this time the answer is no.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as everyone knows, the reason for abolishing the GLC was that London people had the audacity to vote Labour, which in some Tory eyes is offensive? Is he further aware that Conservative and Labour councils, together with those of us with experience in London local government, now believe that if the GLC is not to be recreated an organisation of London boroughs must be formed, irrespective of the party in power? Such an organisation should have somewhere to meet to discuss the important and vital questions that affect the entire metropolis.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the reason for the abolition was not to do with how people voted in London but with the fact that it was an expensive and unhelpful tier of local government. Thirty-three London boroughs are doing a wonderful job in replacing the functions of the GLC, as are the London Planning Advisory Committee and SERPLAN. A strategic body and 33 London boroughs are doing a splendid job.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what is to happen to the area below County Hall? I understand that some would-be developers are asking for conditions which would spoil that public park.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must refer the noble Lord to the planning application, which will be on public deposit.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend consider differentiating between the various regimes at County Hall, some of which were neither unhelpful nor expensive?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, those aspects which were not unhelpful are catered for under the new arrangements. Those which were unhelpful have ceased to exist.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is it not the case that the London Residuary Body turned down an application by an American film company to film some scenes from an 80 million dollar production called "Shining Through" starring Michael Douglas? Is not that rather an attractive use for County Hall? Why was that application turned down?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not aware of the details of a specific application being turned down. However, there are security problems at County Hall and it may well be that security arrangements invalidated any cost benefit that would have arisen by allowing the film company into County Hall.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness aware that the former GLC building has been the responsibility of the London Residuary Body for four years but it has been put to no use whatever? The result is that the former ratepayers, now poll tax payers, of the former GLC area have lost a great deal of money. Is it not fair and right that the public auditor should now be considering surcharging the chairman of the London Residuary Body and its members, in the same way that local councils and government officers would have been surcharged had they carried out such an exercise?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord says. The London Residuary Body is realising considerable assets, all of which will benefit the London boroughs and the people of London.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given the circular which I have quoted, the two planning inquiries at which the inspector said that the building should be held in public use, the collapse of the private sector alternative and the reforms of local government currently being considered by the Minister, does not the noble Baroness agree that the planning inquiry should be reopened? Is she aware that the learned counsel of Lambeth has suggested that if that is not done, the Secretary of State risks judicial review?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the final point is very much a matter for Lambeth council. The three points of criticism in the first inquiry, which is now subject to resubmission of an application, have been addressed by the applicants and that application now sits before the Secretary of State. At present he is considering whether or not the inquiry shall be reopened. This is a period of consultation during which the noble Baroness will have every opportunity to feed to the Secretary of State her particular views. However, I do not agree with many of the statements made by the noble Baroness.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I fear that this is a subject which we could continue to discuss for quite a long time. We have spent 15 minutes discussing two Questions and I believe that it is the feeling of the House that we should now move on to the next Question.

Long-stay Hospital Patients
3.3 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they define a long-stay psychiatric patient.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there is no universal agreement on the definition of a long-stay patient, but government statistics on hospital activity use a stay of one year or more.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, do I understand from my noble friend that a long stay is one year or more? I did not quite hear what he said.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, yes, that is the case.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that definition which has been long awaited. He will be aware, I am sure, that many statistics have been quoted in the past about long-stay hospitals and patients, but never before have we been given a factual definition of one year or more. I thank him.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend; I am glad to have been of help.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that whatever the definition, the vast majority of long-stay patients discharged into the community greatly prefer to live in the community? Will he and his Government take more action to ensure that the present deplorable state of community care provision in local authorities is greatly improved?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am glad that we agree on the basic principle. We feel that we are doing as much as possible through the mental illness specific grant.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, is my noble friend aware that there is still a great need for some long-stay patients to be given continuous care in an asylum?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I must acknowledge the noble Lord's interest and experience in this matter. The word "asylum" is not one which we would accept, but there will continue to be a need for psychiatric wards.

Manufacturing Output
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the figures for manufacturing output in each of the first three quarters of 1990.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, manufacturing output data at constant prices are

99
published in index form with the average for 1985 equal to 100. In the first three quarters of 1990 the index took the values 119.9, 121 and 118.9 respectively.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, is not answering the Question. Is the Minister aware that on 14th November, on the same subject, the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said that,
"we now have an economy which, in the third quarter of 1990, has manufacturing output at a record level"?—[Official Report, 14/11/90; col. 327.]
Do not the figures given by the noble Lord contradict that assertion? When I challenged the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, he promised to write to me if his figures were incorrect. I have received no such letter. Will the noble Lord now admit on behalf of the Government that the statement of his noble friend was incorrect?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord had read further to col. 426, he would have found that my noble friend Lord Hesketh made an apology to the House.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House how our output growth compared with that of our European partners in the 1980s?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad to say that in the 1980s, the annual rate of growth was the second highest of our European partners.
Lord Denham: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Chief Whip is sharp on his feet today! Has the noble Lord seen the figures issued today showing that company liquidity has fallen considerably? Does that not bode ill for the manufacturing investment that is so vital to our manufacturing component which must increase if we are to be successful? Will the noble Lord now agree that it was sheer stupidity, bearing in mind the decline in manufacturing output, to enter the ERM at the high level of 2.95?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there has been a long term decline in the manufacturing share of output since the 1950s. Investment has increased by 11.3 per cent. since 1979. No, I do not believe we joined the ERM at the wrong time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that I said we joined the ERM at the wrong time. As a matter of fact we should not have joined at all. What I said was that we joined it at the wrong level of 2.95.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not believe that we joined at the wrong level either.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall certainly not engage in a debate on the ERM; I shall stick to manufacturing output. I am still attempting to discover what the Government's position is. Am I right that manufacturing output has been stagnant since the beginning of 1989? Without labouring the point excessively, under this Government for the first time in British history we have reached a deficit on manufacturing trade account in the balance of payments. Can the Minister say
100
whether the Government regard that as a satisfactory state of affairs? It sounded as though the Minister felt that the decline in British manufacturing industry was wholly acceptable. Or do the Government, like the rest of us, view the situation as alarming and a matter about which something should be done?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, manufacturing industry is now exporting more than in 1973. We had record manufacturing output during the 1980s; under the Labour Government it actually fell by 2.5 per cent. It is not a matter of whether or not we are satisfied with the current level. We are saying that that must be for the manufacturers and the consumers to decide.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord must be explicit. The present position on overseas account—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Peston: I shall get to the question. I thought the noble Lord would like to understand the subject before I reach the question. I was trying to be helpful. It is unfair to the Minister to ask him a question when he does not know what we are talking about. Is he aware of the fact that we are in a very serious position both externally and internally? He simply needs to tell us whether the Government regard that as satisfactory. Is the present position a good one in the Government's view, or one about which the Government feel something should be done?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I fully understand the subject about which the noble Lord speaks. The Government believe in managing the economy in such a way as to allow businesses to make up their own minds as to where they want to go.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Lord Denham: My Lords, we have already spent six minutes on this Question. I carefully paused before rising. I miscalculated the first time, for which I apologise to your Lordships. It is now the time when the House would probably appreciate hearing the business statement.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I simply point out that I was on my feet to ask a further supplementary question as soon as the noble Lord on the Front Bench answered my first question. I have been on my feet each time when there has been a pause. As I asked the original Question I ask the House to allow me to ask the final question.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am sure that the House will allow the noble Lord to ask a final question. After it has been answered perhaps we can move on.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the Chief Whip. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has answered on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, whether the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, made inquiries as to how he was briefed to make the statement that he did to the House. If it is the case that the Department of Trade and Industry is giving Ministers false information, that suggests that the whole of government policy is based on a set of false assumptions.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a nice point to make; it does not happen to be the case. I refer the noble Lord once again to the words of my noble friend Lord Hesketh which are to be found at col. 426 on the fifth day of the debate on the Address.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the New Roads and Street Works Bill will be adjourned at around 7.30 p.m. for about one hour, and that during the adjournment the Second Reading of the Import and Export Control Bill and the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1990 will be taken.

Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Import and Export Control Bill through its Second Reading and remaining stages this day.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lyell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS SEROTA in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Concession agreements]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("authority") insert
("(after the publication by it of a statement under section (consideration of environmental effects) below)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 11. At the outset I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for his customary courtesy in allowing us to see notes on clauses, which certainly helped us to understand what is a fairly complex Bill. I hope this may be taken as a precedent for other Bills in the future.
The purpose of the amendments to which I now speak is to ensure that the Committee, and indeed the Government, address environmental considerations regarding the proposals which the Government introduce in the Bill. The environmental considerations go to questions affecting significant road construction as well as local environmental implications. At the Second Reading the Minister addressed the latter. He scarcely referred to the former. That is a somewhat strange omission. It is a lacuna that needs to be cured at Committee stage.
Perhaps I may be specific on this point and refer the Committee to what the noble Lord said in this respect. He said:
"First, the rights of people affected to object will be the same with privately financed roads as with traditional ones. Secondly, the environmental appraisal will be the same; no less rigorous standards will be required of privately financed roads than of others".—[Official Report, 20/11/90; col. 626.]
In winding up, he went on to say,
"It will be possible for environmental issues to be considered at inquiries just as it is for public roads. A formal environmental impact assessment will be required. Nothing less than the high requirement for a public scheme will be accepted".—[col. 667.]
So far, so good, but I am afraid not good enough. Our concern is further to test what the Minister said on that occasion, and to ensure that environmental assessment is viewed in national and regional terms. Why do we say that? In the White Paper the Government acknowledge that 20 per cent. of total carbon dioxide emissions in the UK are attributable to the transport sector—mostly road transport. That contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect, while of course other gaseous emissions also contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer. The Government merely assert in the White Paper that they are committed to reversing the trend of carbon dioxide emissions and stabilising them at 1990 levels by 2005 if other countries take similar action. I am not going into a debate about that. I suggest that it is a proviso which is as unclear as it is unhelpful. The trouble is that traffic forecasts made by the Government suggest that future carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector in this country are likely to be comparable to those in the energy sector. Consequently, we face a very serious problem.
We take the view, and no doubt the Government will contest it, that they are not prepared to do sufficient to address this matter. However, if the forecasts contemplated by the Government come to fruition we are considering a huge increase in car

103
usage of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. Against that background we say it was the bounden duty of the Government, when they brought in Parts I and II of this Bill, to make a very full appraisal of the efficiency that they might be able to measure in relation to private road development and also to indicate very clearly to the Committee why they have come to the conclusion that this is environmentally beneficial when there seems to be overwhelming evidence that building more roads does not necessarily ease congestion and improve the environment. What tends to happen is that drivers simply move on to the new roads rather than use other modes of transport.
The White Paper asserts that the Government favour the continuing widening of car ownership as an important aspect of personal freedom of choice. Presumably the purposes of this Bill are designed to fit into that view. It is fair to say that the Government enter certain caveats about this which largely concern car driving being undertaken in a more economical fashion by making cars more fuel efficient, and so on. I do not believe that they begin to address the major problems. The Government have contented themselves with relying on virtually unbridled free market economics in an area where environmental matters cannot be determined solely by such considerations.
It follows that we contend that if not this Government then the next have to see to it that the overall national road programme must be designed to accommodate a strategy which is going to reduce noxious emissions. There is not a hint in the Bill about this overriding priority. At this stage of the Bill we need to examine the shortcomings in the Government's case, as stated at Second Reading, and the ways in which we might help to mitigate the situation, if not remedy it. That is the purpose of my amendment.
I now turn to environmental assessment. There was considerable ambiguity in what the Minister had to say. He said that it would be possible for environmental issues to be considered at inquiries just as happens for public roads. That is always possible. The trouble is that the environmental impact assessment directive, on which the 1988 regulations are based, was introduced to add a further dimension to that which applied to planning inquiries. The difficulty is that the 1988 regulations which reflected the directive enable the Secretary of State, in considering the construction of a new highway or improvement of an existing highway, to determine not that it should happen but whether there shall be an environmental assessment as a mandatory provision or whether it is unnecessary.
When I was a commissioner that was the first directive for which I had any responsibility, but only in a marginal sense because it had already been agreed by the time I took office. I know that in many respects the directive is unsatisfactory because it is so heavily qualified by a number of member states, including the United Kingdom, which wanted to widen the scope of the discretionary element and narrow the mandatory
104
element. That is very unsatisfactory but nonetheless that is the law. Under the law, environmental assessments are only required for motorways and express roads; for roads over 10 kilometres in length; roads affecting designated areas including sites of special scientific interest and conservation areas, but not for areas of outstanding natural beauty. Environmental assessment is also required for roads in certain urban situations.
Environmental assessment, therefore, is somewhat limited. It certainly does not include consideration of the wider consequences of proposed road or land use and it does not necessarily affect countryside protection policies. The one factor which is left in an ambiguous state as a result of what the Minister had to say is how he will exercise his discretion in these matters.
As I have already pointed out, the Minister said (in col. 667 of the Official Report):
"One of the aspects that the Secretary of State will consider in any competition held for a concession will be the environmental standard of the tenderer's proposals".
That of itself is extremely vague. I wish to know from the Minister how these standards are to be measured. The CPRE observes cogently that privately-funded roads are justified by the Government on the basis of opportunities that they open up rather than on the basis of need. Yet it is surely need that should be the paramount consideration. That organisation goes on to argue that there is the strongest possible case that scrutiny of privately-funded roads, and of the regulations concerning them, needs to be far more extensive than even in the case of public roads.
I have already spelt out what we perceive as the limitations concerning environmental assessment as applied in the Bill. I do not believe that this is an issue that we can take on chance. We know that there are likely to be possible conflicts between costs and economic consequences of environmental protection for those who are to be engaged in the private sector in road building. There might well be conflict with wider environmental interests of a national and regional character. I agree with the CPRE when it argues that concessionnaires should be required to meet the highest environmental standards and that there should be no equivocation and no room for ambiguity about that.
I turn now to the amended subsection in Clause 1 and what it will achieve. Part I requires the highway authority, before concluding any agreement, to publish an environmental assessment. That would describe how the proposed road would contribute to national, regional and local environmental and planning policies. I hope that this will not be unduly controversial. It would improve the situation as it appears in the Bill at the moment and as the matter arose from the Minister's statement at Second Reading.
The second part of the new clause would inscribe in the Bill the assurances given by the Minister at Second Reading. Together with those assurances there would be a requirement that environmental assessment would cover any development opportunities likely to

105
be associated with the construction of a road. It would further provide for any road promoted under the Bill to be the subject of an environmental assessment, whether or not that would be required under the 1988 regulations. That would remove the ambiguity at a stroke. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I support the amendment and I am sure that the Committee will have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He comes from the European Commission with consider-able experience of trying to introduce environmental assessments into a wide range of legislation throughout the length and breadth of Europe. Therefore we should take his words on a matter such as this with more than usual seriousness.
There is not a great deal more that I can say. It is obvious that the assurances given by the Government are at the minimum level and need to be spelt out much more clearly than they have been hitherto. That is why the amendments have been put down. The noble Lord referred to the CPRE. It seems to me that the CPRE has a good case here. In a sense the requirements for a private road should be somewhat more stringent than those for a public road. The object of the private road is presumably to make a profit for the organisation funding it and to open up development opportunities around and along the road, for perhaps the building of supermarkets or fun parks which themselves might have an environmental impact. Before a road goes ahead the cost to the environment of such potential developments needs to be taken into account. Although one might say that t he same rules should apply to a private road as apply to a public road, we have to be a little more than usually cautious in this case. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spelt out the case very well, and I hope that the amendment will be supported.
Lord Norrie: During the passage of the Environmental Protection Act I raised on a number of occasions the issue of environmental assessments. I therefore make no apology for the tenor of Amendment No. 11 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Throughout Parts I and II of the Act there is no mention of the environment, yet we know the damage that roads and road vehicles can inflict both on our countryside and on the wider environment. The current road programme looks set to damage at least 37 sites of special scientific interest. Road vehicles contribute about 20 per cent. of carbon dioxide emissions and thus contribute to global warming, a point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Those statistics are the tip of the iceberg but they illustrate how transport provision and environmental protection are inextricably linked. I wonder whether we can permit legislation which might well increase damage to our countryside unless we can be sure that the strongest safeguards are in place.
Environmental protection provides a clear and accepted mechanism by which the environmental impact of a new road can be addressed alongside the economic and social consequences. In particular, in
106
the case of privately funded roads, it is vital that the environmental impact is explicitly addressed. We must ensure that these roads do not become an excuse to open up areas of peaceful and unspoilt countryside which will be seen by the unscrupulous as ripe for development. In some cases local authorities may be persuaded into deals by potential economic benefits, and those benefits will be seen as justification for setting aside countryside protection.
For example, in depressed areas the opportunity to open up new tracts of lands for employment-generating uses may encourage a local authority to support a highly intrusive and damaging road proposal. The road will be the key to unlocking the development potential, allowing the developer, not the authority, to decide which site will be opened. Land use planning may then begin to shift from public control into the hands of the private developer. For these reasons there must be further environmental safeguards with privately funded road proposals. Development must continue to be carefully targeted and focused in line with our highly regarded land use planning policies. It is essential that these new roads should be seen to complement and net to be at cross purposes with these policies. This can be achieved only by including environmental considerations in the Bill.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I listened with great interest and respect to the exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on this matter, recognising the authority with which he speaks after his experience in Brussels. When the general directive on environ-mental impact assessments was before the appropriate Select Committee of this House the view was taken that the planning procedures in this country were so thorough and lengthy that they not only matched but probably exceeded the planning procedures of other countries. Therefore any elaborate additional system was not considered to be necessary. To that extent the kind of concessions that were made were asked for.
I turn to the noble Lord's main argument. He said that if these new roads are built, drivers will move on to them instead of using other forms of transport. There usually are not other forms of transport. Drivers will move on to them in order to escape congestion on existing roads. There will be a little more room to move which will make life easier for all of us. Undoubtedly in the countryside this will improve access to some villages and small towns. The new motorway system of this country has been enormously valuable in taking a huge volume of traffic off the country roads. I wish that we had more motorways. I live in the countryside and know how heavily used by traffic our little lanes are. We should do anything we can to take heavy traffic, especially freight traffic, off the little country lanes. Such an environmental advantage will weigh heavily with the Secretary of State.
The CPRE and the noble Lord made the point that in considering an application the Secretary of State should ensure that there are more stringent considerations with regard to environmental protection. I do not quite understand that point. The considerations should be the same as those for the

107
building of public roads. The process of public inquiries makes certain that every consideration is taken into account and that a proper balance is achieved between the amount of private property that has to be taken to build a road and the additional convenience and saving in costs to the general public who move on the road. I hope that my noble friend will take into account what will happen if these private roads are built. The driving public and freight traffic will move on to them to avoid heavy congestion on existing roads. I cannot imagine a more weighty consideration in the mind of the Secretary of State when he comes to look at the matter. Thank goodness they will not be paid for out of public funds.
Baroness White: I hesitate to intervene in the debate, but I should point out that for the CPRE one could also read the CPRW. I say that because in Wales we have similar apprehensions to those expressed by our sister organisation in England. We are not against more roads in the right place. I was somewhat concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, to whom I normally listen with the greatest respect, spoke as though we were opposing roads as such. We are greatly concerned that, before any consent is given, there should be adequate consideration of the potential environmental effects.
There may well be circumstances in which inadequately considered decisions are taken. In respect of the roads about which we are speaking—which would not just be roads built to relieve traffic congestion but also roads built to make a profit, presumably for the developers—it should be made perfectly clear that the facts must be brought out publicly before any such decisions are taken. I hope therefore that we shall not confuse the issue of whether or not such roads are required with the absolutely essential environmental investigations which should be carried out before any consents are given.
I speak for a country where we have received proposals for marinas and golf clubs in every direction and for casinos in the most unsuitable places—not to mention a tropical paradise which was to have been erected on the borders of Snowdonia. Fortunately that proposal was withdrawn.
Lord Renton: I am sure we can all agree that publicly and privately funded roads are not likely to have different effects on the environment. Therefore, the same kind of planning procedures should apply to both. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has performed a valuable service in helping us to ensure that we have adequate procedures for privately funded roads. Indeed it would be absurd for us to have less strict procedures for protecting the environment when we have privately funded roads compared with those to which we are accustomed, in the case of publicly funded roads, as my noble friend Lord Nugent pointed out. If it is felt desirable to write a provision in the Bill to make absolutely sure that that is the position, then by all means let us do so.
I have studied Amendment No. 11 with some care. I do not wish to make quibbling points on its drafting.
108
However, I think that the drafting would be improved if at the end of line 3 instead of the words "contributes to" we used the word "affects". Incidentally, that is consistent with the words which appear in the margin which refer to "Consideration of environmental effects".
When we look at subsection (2) (a) of the amendment I must say that my imagination is somewhat strained. It states that the concessionaire shall:
"(a) identify and publish a schedule of all development opportunities".
The paragraph continues to state that these are:
"dependent on access to the proposed special road".
The words "all development opportunities" require great forethought. They stretch the foresight which those concerned are supposed to have. Does that apply to all such development opportunities for the rest of time, all probable development opportunities or all reasonably foreseeable development opportunities? To state "all development opportunities" in that way leaves too much to chance. Indeed I believe that the amendment would be strengthened if we made it clear that its application was not quite so wide.
I shall be most interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara has to say on the matter. I am sure that your Lordships would wish to make certain that, in granting these unusual new powers for privately funded roads, we do not allow them to escape our planning procedures or to have an adverse effect on the environment which we do not allow in respect of public roads.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had an interesting debate on the first amendment to the Bill. I am slightly wary of the Opposition's readiness to believe that the more planning documents, assessments and consultations there are, the better the final decision will be. I fear that such processes too often merely delay decisions and do not make them any better.
Of course the environmental implications of any road scheme are important, including those of privately financed roads. The implications of roads, including privately financed ones, for town and country planning are important. Roads can open up opportunities for development: often those opportunities are welcomed—as Ministers know from the deputations they receive week in, week out; however, often they are not.
But the right time for these matters to be debated publicly is at the public inquiry, which will thoroughly scrutinise and explore the road scheme as a whole, with the toll order. Wherever required by the Highways Act and the European Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment a formal environ-mental statement will be published with the draft special road scheme and toll order.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is wrong in thinking that environmental assessment would be carried out only where required by a narrow EC directive. All significant trunk road proposals are fully assessed under the manual of environmental

109
appraisal. All significant proposals have to be justified at the public inquiry. They are always fully examined, especially in areas of outstanding natural beauty. The same will apply to concession roads as applies to public roads. As my noble friends Lord Nugent and Lord Norrie pointed out, so indeed they should be. That will ensure that the public inquiry is well informed.
I should remind Members of the Committee that an environmental statement includes sufficient data to identify and assess the main effects which the scheme is likely to have upon the environment and a description of the measures proposed to mitigate adverse effects, together with a non-technical summary. With the environmental assessment, and the justification at the public inquiry, these schemes will be subject to a rigorous examination similar to that of the department's own conventional schemes. I submit that there is no need to erect any additional hurdles.
Special mention was made of development control by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and by my noble friend Lord Norrie. First and foremost, that is the responsibility of the local planning authorities. They have adequate powers to prevent inappropriate development in the green belt and similar environmentally sensitive areas, and to control it elsewhere. Moreover, Clause 16 gives the highway authority control over accesses to a tolled road, thus giving it a virtual veto over development.
I was rather surprised that my noble friend Lord Norrie was so critical of local authorities which decide that they want development in order to help their depressed areas and which believe that private finance may assist. I believe that such local authorities should be encouraged in this belief, provided that they consider the environmental implications. They should not have new and unprecedented obstacles put in their way.
I should perhaps outline our policy on development in connection with privately financed roads. We know that a new road will open up land for development, and we want a concessionaire to be able to reap some of the gains from that. It will help the viability of the road, and keep down tolls. That is why Clause 16 gives the concessionaire, as well as the highway authority, control over access. We do not intend development near concession roads, any more than development near trunk roads, to make them unsafe or inadequate for their purpose. That is why the highway authority, as well as the concessionaire, will have control over access.
None of that requires publication of a schedule of development opportunities before a concession agreement is made. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, I doubt whether a concessionaire would know, at that stage, what all the development opportunities would be. He will have no way of discovering the intentions of all the landowners, or the ideas that every potential developer might have. The publication of a partial list would merely cause excitement in the development community at a time when the road proposal had not even begun its statutory procedures.
110
So, while I acknowledge the great importance of the environment and of development gains in roads policy generally, not least as regards concession roads, I cannot recommend the Committee to make an amendment that would do nothing but increase bureaucracy and delay.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect to the Minister, I found that response depressing and unhelpful. Perhaps I may at the outset say that I support what my noble friend Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said. The Minister dealt somewhat cursorily with the points that they made in support of the new clauses. I am the first to acknowledge, not having—no Opposition ever does—the drafting capacity available to the Government, that some improvement in the language of the new clause might be required, but I want to deal here with the principle rather than the detail.
Before I come to that point, perhaps I may address the wider environmental considerations affecting tolls. I have received information today that, in the United States on the Merritt Parkway, which is an important transport link between New York and New England —I stand to be corrected on this point—they are abandoning tolls for environmental reasons, because the idling of motor cars at the toll booths causes serious environmental pollution. I do not expect the Minister to answer that point immediately, but perhaps he will look into it and write to me and we may return to it at a later stage.
Let me turn to the points made by a number of Members of the Committee opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has considerable experience of transport, as we all acknowledge. One must not lightly disregard what he has to say. Disregard it I do, but not lightly. He said that he could not understand why more stringent provisions, as encouraged by the CPRE, in respect of developments by private concessionaires rather than public authorities (the Government or other highway authorities) should be required. The answer essentially is, as I pointed out, that a conflict might arise between wider environmental considerations and the narrower economic considerations which might be applied by the concessionaires. There is a second factor, which is that the public authorities are of course publicly accountable—that is a cogent point—in contrast to the private concessionaire.
The noble Lord said that he was surprised that I said that drivers might be attracted to drive on more congested roads rather than use the new ones. One has merely to look at the situation in France, where the motorways are empty compared with the other heavily used roads.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that the word "affects" is probably better than the word we have used. I concede that point. The noble Lord has an eye for such matters. In all friendship, I acknowledge his great cogency in these matters. I should perhaps have consulted him when drafting the amendment. I am sure that it would have been a better one.

111
On the question of general foresight, subsection (2) (a) of Amendment No. 11 reads:
"identify and publish a schedule of all development opportunities which are dependent on access to the proposed special road".
That does not require the huge measure of foresight described by the noble Lord. It may be a point that we should look into, but it is the general theme of those matters that one should address.
I turn immediately to the points made by the Minister. The gravamen of his argument effectively was that we did not need environmental assessment because public inquiries, as they have been going on for years and years, were sufficient. Why then did the Government agree, as they eventually did, to an admittedly highly qualified environmental impact assessment directive? There must have been a case for it or the Government would never have subscribed to that proposal. It goes further than the ordinary planning inquiries with which the country has been familiar for so long.
A planning inquiry, by its very nature, is much more restricted. It does not in all instances have to take into account the much broader considerations which I and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, addressed earlier. We come then to the Minister's understanding of the directive and the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, where it is clearly stated in paragraph 2—to which I draw the Minister's attention—that:
"In any case where the Secretary of State has under consideration the construction of a new highway or the improvement of an existing highway, he shall determine, before the date of publication of details of the project, whether or not it falls within Annex I or Annex II to (the) Council directive".
Annex I is a mandatory provision, which provides that there must be an environmental assessment. There is no question of the Minister's discretion. He would have to agree. Where there is the construction of motorways, express roads and lines for long distance railway traffic and airports, that does not arise. It is the construction of motorways and express roads which is relevant here. Other roads come within Annex II. That is permissive so far as the Minister is concerned. How are we to determine, within the terms of the proposal now before us, whether the Minister will consider that a project is to be an issue within Annex II, giving him the right to say that there is no need for an environmental impact assessment? That is a point which needs far greater clarification than what was said by the Minister today, which, with respect, appeared—I do not say this too lightly—to be a trifle complacent.
I ask the Minister to give an assurance to the Committee that the arguments that we have produced —that in all such cases there needs to be an environmental assessment, taking into account the effect that even relatively small developments can have on the countryside in terms of linking up with the transport infrastructure generally—show that they are matters which need to be dealt with in that way. The
112
amendments have considerable support, as I have said, from the CPRE, the Association of Municipal Authorities and many others.
I hope that the Government will be rather more positive in replying to the debate than has hitherto been the case; otherwise I fear that I shall be forced to take the opinion of the Committee on the matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can only repeat what I said in my answer to the debate. Where an environmental impact assessment is necessary—and it is carried out for all significant trunk road proposals —there will be no difference whether it is a toll road or a public highway.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That reply adds nothing to what the Minister has said, and he stated that it would not. In those circumstances, I must take the opinion of the Committee.
4.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 157.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Annan, L.

Jacques, L.

Attlee, E.

Jay, L.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kennet, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Northfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Rea, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Haden-Guest, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Varley, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Walpole, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walston, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

113

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lyell, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Allerton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Alport, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Arran, E.

Mancroft, L.

Astor, V.

Manton, L.

Auckland, L.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marsh, L.

Beloff, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mersey, V.

Birdwood, L.

Middleton, L.

Blatch, B.

Milverton, L.

Blyth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Boardman, L.

Morris, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Moyne, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Munster, E.

Brightman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Norrie, L.

Brocket, L.

Northbourne, L.

Brookes, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Onslow, E.

Butterworth, L.

Orkney, E.

Caithness, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Pender, L.

Cockfield, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Porritt, L.

Cox, B.

Quinton, L.

Craigton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Reay, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Renton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Renwick, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Daventry, V.

Romney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Effingham, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elibank, L.

Seebohm, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Selborne, E.

Elles, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Elton, L.

Shannon, E.

Erne, E.

Sharples, B.

Faithfull, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Slim, V.

Flather, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gisborough, L.

Sudeley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Suffield, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Swansea, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tenby, V.

Harvington, L.

Terrington, L.

Hayter, L.

Teviot, L.

Hertford, M.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tranmire, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Tryon, L.

Kemsley, V.

Ullswater, V.

Killearn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Waddington, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Knollys, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Layton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Wynford, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("operation or improvement") and insert ("or operation").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also, for the convenience of the Committee, to Amendment No. 5. I shall be brief as I simply wish to probe the Government to discover what their intentions are in this matter. The Committee will note that Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete the words "or improvement" from line 12 on page 1. Amendment No. 5 seeks to place a blanket ban on concession agreements being made under the Bill,
"for a road already in use by the public".
We want to try to prevent the privatisation of existing roads by the back door.
The Long Title of the Bill refers to new roads. Therefore, I assume that it is not the intention of the Government to allow this legislation to be used for the tolling of existing roads. However, the inclusion of the word "improvement" in this part of the Bill leaves one with grounds for suspicion. After all, our existing roads have been paid for by the taxpayer. One simply does not want to see them handed over to private developers for their own purposes. As I said, I am merely putting a simple question to the Government and I look forward with great interest to hearing their reply. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: As the amendment also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and myself, I should explain why we support the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. On Second Reading we made it absolutely clear that we had no objection to privately funded roads. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, there must be some reason why the Government have added the words "or improvement" to the Bill.
Improvements can only be applicable to existing roads. The possibility of a toll being introduced on an existing road that has been improved must be against the public interest. No concessionaire will seek a concession purely as a philanthropic gesture. Such a concessionaire does not want to hand money over to the taxpayer and the motorist; he wants a return on his money. The only way he can obtain a return is by charging a toll. We want an assurance from the Government that there is no possibility of converting a present non-toll road into a toll road. This is rather more than a probing amendment. It seeks to discover why the Government have added the words "or improvement".
Will the Government accept Amendment No. 5 which states that no concession agreement may be made on a road that is already a public road? We heartily support both amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I was rather surprised when I saw the amendment on the Marshalled List. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, might

115
think it a good idea to let a concession for 30, 40 or 50 years and not give a concessionaire any powers to improve the road. I ask the Committee to imagine what our present network would be like if there had been no improvements for such a length of time.
Improvement does not only mean major works like widening, which could be controversial in some circumstances. It covers such things as tree planting and installing guard rails, which I am sure the Committee would agree are beneficial. It would be absurd if every time a tree needed replacing the concessionaire had to ask the highway authority to plant a new one. That explains the use of the word "improvement" in the Bill.
I can of course understand the anxieties that led to the tabling of these amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, there was concern that we or our successors might grant a concession which allowed a private firm to take over, improve and toll an existing road thus depriving the public of the right to use it free of charge. However, we have made it perfectly clear that that is not our policy. The Bill contains safeguards against our successors or a local authority doing so, though they are not to be found in Clause 1. Under Clause 6 a toll order must be made concurrently with a special road scheme. That is essentially a scheme to authorise the construction of a new road.
Having said that, I must point out that a special road scheme may include some stretches of existing roads and often it is sensible for it to do so. There are examples in the Department of Transport's preferred route for the Birmingham northern relief road. However, in the competition we are asking tenderers to give us their proposals for dealing with the local traffic which would be diverted from those lengths of road. The alternative must be free to the user. I must assure the Committee that it would not be possible to hand over an existing road to a concessionaire to improve or toll without statutory procedures. There would have to be not only a special road scheme but also an appropriation order under Section 18 of the Highways Act 1980. Both would be subject to a public inquiry if there were objections.
There is one other matter on which I can reassure the Committee. The inclusion of the word "improvement" in Clause 1 does not confer on the concessionaire any power to extend the length of his roads or to acquire additional land for widening by compulsory purchase. Any improvement which depended on compulsory purchase would require a compulsory purchase order authorising the highway authority and not the concessionaire to acquire land. Such an order would be subject to the normal procedures with the strong possibility of a public inquiry. In all such matters a concessionaire would be under the same constraints and obligations as a highway authority and anything which required authorisation by an order could only be done through the highway authority acting under its own powers.
I hope, therefore, that on reflection the Committee will agree that for some concession agreements it will
116
be very much in the public interest if a concessionaire is able to carry out improvements. It will be for those negotiating individual agreements to decide which improvement powers a concessionaire may exercise and whether the highway authority needs to be consulted or give its consent in advance. I hope that with the assurances I have been able to give the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the Minister for that explanation. It gave me considerable reassurance. I shall have to read his reply in considerable detail as a certain amount of it was in "Civil Service-ese", though it was beautifully read. However, I take the Minister's point on improvements. I hope he will understand that we were worried that the word "improvement" might have a wider meaning than the one he gave it. I hope the Minister will take another look at that word to check that there is no possibility of a concessionaire misinterpreting it at some stage in the future. I understood what the Minister said as regards Clause 6 being a block on present roads being taken over. With the slight reservation that I want to study what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("where the income from such a toll equates over such period as may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations with the cost involved in the provision of the infrastructure").
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply seeks to probe the Government's thinking on toll roads. There appears to be an inconsistency in the approach that the Government have adopted over the years and in the not far distant past. I recall only too well British Ministers arguing in the transport council that toll roads were an abomination. They were thinking particularly of the situation in France but also of that in other member states of the Community. In other words, they were rather unenthusiastic about toll roads.
The reason for their lack of enthusiasm was a good one. They felt that toll roads did not provide a level playing field for the road haulage industry and that if toll roads existed in some member states but not in others there would be an unfavourable impact on the objective of securing harmonised conditions of competition. That was the gravamen of the Government's argument. Therefore, they were enthusiastic supporters of the Commission's line.
I believe however that the Commission has changed its position to the extent that if tolls are necessary they are only acceptable where the amount is in line with the cost involved in the provision of the infrastructure. That would defeat the whole purpose of what the Government are about.
We need to know, first, how the Government justify their change of stance from, say, 1985 to 1987 or 1988, and their complete opposition at that stage to toll

117
roads subject only to estuarial crossings and other specific exceptions. In general the Government adopted that position. Why the change?
Secondly, the Minister said that there had been discussions with the Commission. How did the Government react to the line that I have described the Commission taking? It is incumbent on the Government to disclose that to the Committee. In fairness to the Government they did not have to consult. But they did, so they say. What did they say to the Commission about the line that it was taking? And what was the effect generally on the Government's relations with the Commision in the development of road policy? I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Again I find this amendment rather surprising. It would be very restrictive set against the whole concept of toll roads. We are talking only a few days after the Channel Tunnel breakthrough, an ample demonstration that the private sector can and will undertake colossal infrastructure projects, taking enormous risks, provided that the potential rewards are great. Does anyone believe that the capital for that project would have been realised, initially and at later stages, if investors had been told, as this amendment says, that as soon as their costs had been recouped the asset would be taken away from them? No. We should have had no project, an abandoned one, or a massive bill to the taxpayer.
I could go on about the amendment. I wish to answer particularly the point that the noble Lord made about European Commission costs. He asked how the Government justified their change of stance since, I think, 1985. The answer is simple. It is because we have since that time developed a policy on private finance for roads.
The Government are not, of course, giving road promoters a licence to print money for ever. Concessions will be for a limited period following which all functions relating to the road will revert to the highway authority. Where there is a monopoly there will, in the toll order, be a maximum level of toll prescribed. But in general the protection of the consumer will be competition: first, the competition that will be held before a concession is let; and secondly—and most importantly in the case of this amendment and the noble Lord's arguments about the Commission—the competition that the concessionaire will face from the alternative free roads which a dissatisfied road user will be able to choose. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wonder whether the noble Lord would now concede that it was not just in 1985 but also in 1986 and, I believe, in 1987, that the Government were taking a fiercely strong view about tolls in France and elsewhere on the grounds that they were prejudicial to our own road haulage industry? Is he now saying that the French were right all the time, as were the Italians and Spanish, in applying tolls and that the Government were hopelessly wrong during that period?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As I said, we have had a chance to review our policy on toll roads. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that we should never review our policy on anything and especially what emanates from Brussels. We take notice of what is said, and occasionally we change our minds.
Lord Tordoff: It is admirable to find a government that change their mind. It is rare. It is about as rare as changing their leader. I have to say to the noble Lord that, to the question why did the Government change their mind, the answer "because we changed our minds" is not helpful to the Committee. I wonder whether the noble Lord can go further in explaining why the Government now take a different view? I thought that was the question that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, first asked.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure how much further I can go. We looked at the scope for private finance in road construction. We published a Green Paper. The responses on the whole were favourable, and a Bill is now before your Lordships' Committee.
Lord Clinton-Davis: That is scarcely adding anything to the original answer, which was not an answer. What it really comes to is that for three years the Ministers attending transport councils were hopelessly wrong. That is what it comes to. Why did they not think up their policy a little earlier? Why has it taken them so long? I am all in favour of the Government reviewing their policies. I hope that they will do it right across the board. The country will be infinitely better off in the short period in which they remain in office. But we have not had an explanation at all as to why the Government took their stance in those days.
There is a serious point here, not just a debating point. Minister after Minister put forward to their colleagues in council the point that it is manifestly unfair to our own road haulage industry to be faced by tolls elsewhere, because it is having to pay for heavy goods vehicle licences and imposts of that kind, and therefore it is paying twice over if it has to pay tolls. Are we now to understand that the Government say that all that can be thrown out of the window because they are going to take a position rather similar to that of those member states which engaged in this policy before?
That would presuppose that the Government are going to engage in a substantial policy of privately-financed road building and the use of tolls, and that is not what the Government have been saying during the course of this debate. We are left in a cloud of confusion, and I suggest that the Minister has left us in that cloud of confusion further by his response today. However, I suspect that we are not going to get much further with the Minister because he is engaging in non-answers this afternoon. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, may I say that I feel that I have not been engaging in non-answers this afternoon. The noble Lord may think that the answer I gave to the first amendment was a non-answer but

119
many others, certainly on this side of the Committee, would disagree with him. Again, I could go a little further but I am sure that I shall never go far enough to satisfy the noble Lord in saying, as I said at Second Reading, that the Commission has not commented critically on these proposals.
Of course the Commission's worries have been about public tolls in some countries which could be used as a tax. Ours in these proposals will be market-determined. We are still unhappy at any imbalance between member states in costs of road haulage, but we no longer believe that the fact that the French have tolls and the Germans do not is an intolerable imbalance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is my noble friend aware how amused many of us are to see the supposedly progressive Labour Party in opposition objecting to any change in policy? Is he aware that its wonderful, innate conservatism of insisting that no policy should be changed, even if it is thought over again, gives great pleasure to some of us?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The insistence that I heard was that it should not be changed without a reason; we are still waiting to hear the reason.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am most gratified to hear that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Contrary to what he said, I would encourage a change in virtually every government policy right across the board. I have not said that I oppose them. I have been trying to probe why the Government have changed their stance. The Minister has offered us no conclusive reason for that, but has simply said, "We have changed our policy". So be it. I will not press the matter any further at this stage and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.5 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) A concession agreement relating to the design, construction, maintenance, operation or improvement of a special road shall provide that where the concessionaire decides not to proceed with the proposed road, the concessionaire shall pay to the highway authority such compensation in respect of costs incurred by it as may be determined in accordance with the agreement.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I want to point out that its aim is to ensure that compensation is available to a highway authority on the same basis as is currently provided in relation to a concessionaire in Clause 1(4). The Bill as drafted goes to great lengths to protect the interests of the concessionaire. For example, Clause 1(4) would require the highway authority to pay compensation to a concessionaire if either the highway authority does not proceed with the proposal or a special road scheme is not made.
Commenting on this clause at Second Reading, the Minister said:
"The existing authorisation procedure for public roads will in broad terms apply to these new roads. If following a public
120
inquiry it is decided not to proceed with the scheme, the promoter will be able to receive compensation from the highway authority in respect of costs incurred in working up the scheme, as determined under the concession agreement".
The Minister went further and said:
"If the concession agreement terminates prematurely (if, for example, the concessionaire goes bankrupt) the highway authority will be obliged where practical to 'sell' the concession on to a new private sector promoter."—[Official Report, 20/11/90; col. 628.]
This is dealt with in Clause 5.
The Bill makes no provision for any compensation to the highway authority if a concessionaire, for whatever reason, pulls out of a scheme before the stage envisaged by Clause 5 is reached. Just as a concessionaire would inevitably incur costs in preparing a scheme up to the authorisation stage, so the highway authority would inevitably incur costs as a result of discussions and joint working with the concessionaire during that period.
The amendment is based on the wording of subsection (4). If the reason for work on a proposed road not proceeding lies with the concessionaire, this clause would require compensation to be paid to the highway authority to cover any costs it may have incurred in developing the proposal.
The amendment seems a common sense and a fair one, so that the highway authority is treated in just the same way as the present subsection will treat the concessionaire. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure that this amendment is strictly necessary. Any highway authority worth its salt would insist on a provision in a concession agreement requiring the concessionaire to indemnify it against his abandoning a project to which, let us remember, he will have committed himself by spending money in a competition. Subsection (4) of this clause has a different purpose —to reassure those who will be putting money into new road projects that they will not lose it all if the project fails through no fault of their own.
There may, however, be merit, if strictly no need, to have in the Bill the provision proposed in this amendment. I can certainly see that there is justice in having the balance. But I could not accept the present wording. As currently drafted, there would be some confusion if, for example, a concessionaire decided to abandon a scheme because the highway authority had not met its obligations. The concessionaire might thus become liable for the highway authority's costs, even though the decision not to continue had been, in effect, forced upon him. I will undertake therefore to consider this further, and I thank the noble Lord for bringing it to our attention.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful for that assurance. At the outset I was doubtful about what the noble Lord would say because he said that he thought the amendment was not strictly necessary. But I now see that he thinks it may be necessary and he has said that he will have a careful look at the wording. I shall look forward to seeing what comes forward on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) A concession agreement shall provide that the costs of policing the special road shall be borne by the concessionaire, and such costs shall be determinable, in respect of any section of such a road falling within its area, by the relevant police authority.").
The noble Lord said: I now come to a slightly different subject, because in moving Amendment No. 7 I raise the question of the costs of policing. The amendment specifically refers to policing, but it could go wider. Again, this is very much a probing amendment to see the Government's reaction to this point. It could be taken to include ambulance services, fire services and so on.
The cost of providing services of this sort, particularly policing, is met out of the Exchequer. Although hypothecation is never allowed, road fund taxation obviously goes some way towards providing for the payment of these services. I suppose that it would be possible for the Exchequer to make a charge on the Department of Transport, or for the police to make a charge on the Department of Transport, for providing services on public roads. However, we would not do that as it would just be a book-keeping entry.
The situation in regard to private roads is rather different. Where a road is designed to make a profit for concessionaires, we do not believe that the services should be provided free, funded by the Exchequer. Let me say straight away that we on these Benches, and I suspect noble Lords in other parts of the Committee, would not welcome the introduction of private police forces onto these new roads. Nevertheless the concessionaire should be prepared to pay and the true cost should be shown in the accounting process. I suppose one might consider this to be somewhat like the situation at football grounds, where the owners of the football grounds have to pay for the police to be there, even though it is in the public interest for the police to be present.
As I said, this amendment could go wider. I have concentrated on the police only for the purpose of giving this matter an airing this afternoon, and I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This amendment raises a very important point. Let me, first, reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the police will enforce the law on concession roads just as on all other roads, and that the law will be the same. Concession roads will not be places where motorists can get away with drunken driving or with speeding, or where lorries never have their weights or their tachographs checked. It will be for the police, in their own discretion, to decide what enforcement presence is required, and how to deploy it.
Let me remind your Lordships that concession roads under the Bill will be highways. They will not be privately owned; Clause 1(3) of the Bill makes this crystal clear. The public will have their common law rights to use them as highways, subject, of course, to their paying the toll.
122
The case made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is not therefore an overwhelming one. Nor does it fit in well with the line of argument that ran through many of the Second Reading speeches, and through many of the amendments before us today, that concession roads, if they exist at all, should be integrated into the planning and operation of the rest of the highway network. It does, nevertheless, have some force, particularly in respect of any roads which would not have been provided by a highway authority but for the initiative of a promoter. As the noble Lord has said, there are some analogies with, for example, football grounds, where the police are reimbursed by the football ground owner; and we have always made it clear that a concessionaire should meet all the costs of operation of a road, in return for the right to toll it.
Our intention therefore is that when a promoter puts forward a proposal for a road which is not in the highway authority's existing programme, and which it would not itself have provided, it should be made clear from the beginning—for instance, in the tender invitation document —that policing costs will fall to the concessionaire. I do not think that it would be fair to the concessionaire to leave entirely to the police authority determination of the amount that should be paid, as this amendment seeks to do. Some form of a formula or provision for arbitration might he required. I do not believe that any provision in the Bill is needed for that. However, there are some implications for the rule of contract and if a provision would be helpful, I shall certainly come back to it. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We are moderately satisfied with what the Minister has said. I should like to ask him a number of questions arising from his reply. Personally, I believe that this question should be on the face of the Bill. It would reassure the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I think that it would reassure local authorities, to know that in the circumstances described by the noble Lord there would be a repayment by the concessionaire.
For instance, perhaps I may draw attention to the provisions of the Channel Tunnel Bill. Those Members of the Committee who had the good fortune to serve on the Select Committee dealing with that Bill were told—indeed, it was common ground—that the total costs of policing would be met by the concessionaires. The costs involved were very substantial. We were told that it was likely that there would be an increase in the establishment of the Kent police force by over 200 men and women officers.
I do not believe that an issue of this kind should be left out of the Bill. Local police authorities are entitled to know specifically what they can expect to receive —I shall come back to that point in a moment—and what will be the formula used to deal with the question of how much will be received from the concessionaire. More specifically, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the Audit Commission's report published last month entitled Taking care of the coppers—I think that is a light jest from the Audit Commission! — income generation by provincial police forces. The sums

123
of money involved are again very substantial. The Minister's department will no doubt have a copy of the report but just let me give the Committee an illustration of what is involved. According to the Audit Commission, the calculation of the cost of a policeman for one year is over £33,000. That takes account of pay, overtime, housing allowance, uniform, employer's national insurance contributions and pension costs which themselves are £4,500. So the sums of money are significant.
However, apart from the cost of the individual police officers, who would be working on a road which had been constructed in order to provide a profit for the concessionaire, one has to consider the cost of the vehicles which they use, the cost of communication support and indeed the command and control systems at the force headquarters as well as the use of that equipment by police officers and civilian employees. By any standards, the sums of money are considerable.
The question which was dealt with by the Minister and to which my noble friend Lord Tordoff referred concerned football grounds. Indeed the Audit Commission's report censured some police authorities for not charging an adequate sum of money—the full economic cost—both as far as football grounds are concerned and also the large number of other payments which they should have received from people using police services. Therefore, I believe that we are talking about a very important issue.
There is another important point; namely, who will decide the level of police cover on a road where, according to the Minister, the concessionaire will make a payment. Will it be the chief officer of police? Will he be entitled to make that judgement himself? Inevitably the concessionaire, given the scale of the costs involved, to which I have referred, will arguably want to have the minimum possible level of cover because the costs will come from his profits. Therefore the level of police cover is itself a matter of considerable importance. In my view, it is quite clear that the chief officer of police must make that decision. I agree with the noble Lord to the extent that if there are disputes there can sometimes be questions of arbitration. But, as he will recall, it has been this Government's view, as it was their predecessor's, that operational matters are exclusively a question for the chief officer. In my view therefore so far as concerns the level of police cover, it would not be right to submit that particular issue to arbitration.
I return to the point which I made at the beginning. I very much hope that the Minister will look again at this matter and consider whether it is possible to bring forward some amendment at Report stage, Third Reading or whenever it may be, in order to deal with this issue so that police authorities and chief officers of police will know exactly where they stand. In saying that, I have one final question: has there been a discussion on this matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I may well have missed the point during the earlier part of the debate but the analogy between roads and railways leaps to mind. We have had the railway police for a long time, in fact since the railways were what I might call concessionaires. They were private companies long before 1923 and back into the past century. It seems to me that there is an analogy here. I am not too sure what it is but, if the railways pay for their police, the road concessionaires ought to pay for theirs.
That might be obvious and might well already have been said. On the other hand, if it turns out that under the Bill the road concessionaires are relieved of paying for the police, would it not be equitable if the railways equally were relieved of paying for theirs?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support strongly the highly pertinent observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. In particular, the point that he made about this not being a matter which should simply be one for contractual relationships but inscribed onto the face of the Bill, is overwhelmingly important. It is important for reasons additional to those offered by the Minister.
First, it is important for the reason that the police were taken to task over the inadequate amount of money that was being charged for policing of football grounds. That leads one to suppose that this is a matter which requires public invigilation or is capable of being invigilated by the public. It needs to be transparent, not simply for the police and the local authorities, but also for the public at large. Certainly, if it were left to a contractual relationship that would not happen. Or at least one would have to search through the highways and byways asking Parliamentary Questions about it, which is wholly unsatisfactory.
There is also the point about the strategic considerations introduced by the noble Lord. That deserves far more of an answer than has been provided hitherto, indeed if any answer has been given. Surely it must be left to the chief officer to decide the level of policing and the way in which it is undertaken. Anything short of that would be potentially disastrous.
I was interested to hear about the level of costing attributable to a single police officer, which I had not realised. The Committee is indebted to the noble Lord for providing that information. In addition there are all sorts of infrastructural costs which have to be taken into account. One wonders whether it will be possible sufficiently to foresee the increase in charges that would have to be made at the beginning of a contract. A contract which stated, "The charges may be increased in relation to discussions between the police authority, the concessionaire and perhaps the Government," would not offer the transparency required. Nor would it provide the flexibility that also needs to be introduced.
For those reasons, in addition to the very powerful reasons that have already been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I hope that the Minister will

125
reconsider the matter. The Minister said that it is a matter of considerable importance. Perhaps he will go further and say he proposes to comment further upon it at Report, rather than deciding today that he is not prepared to move. The Committee would be grateful to him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that is exactly what I said in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff: that we would look at the matter. I adduced some arguments in favour of it and some against. However, I said that we would consider it. I am sorry if the noble Lord was not listening to my speech—as I think he was not doing earlier.
However, I listened carefully to the very interesting points that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made. I certainly wish to consult on the issues that he raised. There are parallels with the Channel Tunnel legislation and the policing of airports. In that regard, I said that it would need consultation between the operator and the police. I know that there have been quite considerable troubles at airports over the level of policing required to be paid for by the airport operator. I may be wrong, but I believe that the airport operator is not always under the impression that those policemen are working full time although he is paying for them. I do not wish to say whether or not that is right.
Our intention is that the police should patrol toll roads no more and no less than they patrol any other highway. As I said in my original reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, it is a public highway and the powers of the police are exactly the same as they would be on any other road.
However, I shall study with care what the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Tordoff, have said. I shall come back on it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has not dealt with my question about consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I missed that point. I do not know the answer. I shall come back on it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We are at an early stage of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to write to me and to those of my colleagues who have spoken in the debate to let us know the Government's thinking on these questions. I very much hope that an amendment will be produced by the Government to deal with the matter. I do not believe that the law of contract is the appropriate way to deal with it.
There are a number of complicated and serious issues involving the discretion of chief officers of police in making decisions on the number of officers to be used. I suspect that there would be strong opposition to arbitration on this point.
I do not wish to become involved in a debate with the noble Lord about the policing of airports legislation. It was the first significant piece of legislation that I was responsible for introducing in this House when I was in the Home Office. I would not
126
wish to become involved in a dispute which would get the noble Lord into trouble with the Home Office about the way in which these matters are handled at airports. Perhaps I may put on my old departmental hat. The noble Lord will realise that there are issues involved in the Prevention of Terrorism Act which mean that the level of policing at airports has to be far higher than that for new toll roads.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to everyone who has taken part in this short debate. It has been extremely fruitful. I am glad that the Minister has again reinforced the point that the law will be enforced on new roads as it will be elsewhere. It is important to have that statement on the record.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his expertise on the subject and for his merry jest from the Audit Commission. We do not often have such merriment on a Tuesday afternoon.
I do not believe that the noble Lord. Lord Howie of Troon, should press the point about reversing the situation with regard to the railways. Perhaps he was not too serious about it. He is right to point to the similarity between railways and roads.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about public invigilation is very important. It is quite clear from those who have spoken that the Committee consider it an important matter which, if possible, should be on the face of the Bill. Anything less is unlikely to do the job that is required.
If the noble Lord is going to come back on the amendment, perhaps he will also consider the question of fire, ambulance, and any other public services that have to be provided. Similar arguments will apply. I look forward to the noble Lord making progress in that direction. I very much hope that he will put down an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. If he is unable to do so, I hope that he will inform us at an early stage of the reason why.
With thanks to all concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:

("(5) A concession agreement shall—

(a) be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State; and

(b) be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament,

and for the purposes aforesaid a concession agreement shall be treated for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 as if it were a statutory instrument.

(6) Where the highway authority which enters into a concession agreement is a local highway authority, the highway authority shall forthwith submit the agreement to the Secretary of State for the purpose of its being laid before Parliament as aforesaid.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment proposes the insertion of two additional subsections to Clause 1. The purpose is to ensure that the concession agreements are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The key document in relation to any proposed, privately-funded road or bridge under the provisions

127
of the Bill will be the concession agreement. As drafted, the Bill includes little detail as to the likely content of the agreements other than in extremely general terms.
In addition there is no scope for any parliamentary scrutiny of the agreements. Subject to the broad constraints set out in the Bill, the contents of the agreements are left as a matter to be determined between the concessionaire and the highway authority. The issues which the Bill requires to be covered in the concession agreement are important. Obligations in relation to the design, construction, maintenance, operation or improvement of the road, the transfer of land, the payment of compensation to concessionaires and the identification of the highway functions to be exercised by the concessionaire are all extremely significant issues. Many are of direct interest to the public, in particular to those people who may wish to use or to have property near the proposed road. Despite the significance of and a potential interest in the concession agreement, there is no provision in the Bill as drafted for any form of public scrutiny. The amendment ensures the publication of the agreement and provides an opportunity for public scrutiny of it. I draw attention to the additional subsection (6). It provides that where it is the highway authority which enters into a concession agreement, the agreement must be submitted to the Secretary of State so that it can go through the same parliamentary scrutiny machinery that I have already outlined. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. First, it seems to be thoroughly unsound in principle. Members of the Committee and Members of another place are being asked to accept the principle of toll roads. That issue of principle will be decided as a result of the passage of the Bill.
The amendment would subject every agreement for a toll road, however small, however limited in scope, to the full procedure of parliamentary control of delegated legislation. It would involve the possibility of a Prayer being tabled against every individual agreement. That would be a considerable waste of parliamentary time and would exaggerate the importance of these agreements. Some relating to a large and splendid road may be of considerable interest but many may be of insignificant interest. Yet it is proposed to treat them all the same and to require full parliamentary procedure in relation to them.
Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is wrong in saying that in the absence of the amendment there can be no parliamentary scrutiny of a decision to make such an agreement. Members of the Committee know perfectly well that Ministers in another place or in this Chamber can be asked questions about a particular agreement, and if necessary must make a case to justify it. Surely that is a more sensible way of proceeding than automatically cluttering up the Order Paper and the machine of government with a whole series of essays on delegated legislation. It would be a great mistake to accept the amendment. Not only
128
would it exaggerate the importance of many of the agreements, but it would waste parliamentary time; and it is unsound in principle.
5 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I am not sure about all this. Generally speaking, the type of work would be the subject of private parliamentary Bills and would come under substantial parliamentary scrutiny in Committee and debate in this Chamber.
I must admit immediately that I do not know how the Bill works. I presume that general permission would have been given at an earlier stage before the concession was given. It would seem reasonable that at some date after general parliamentary scrutiny had been made and permission given it would be right to look at a particular proposal in detail. I believe that that is what my noble friend on the Opposition Front Bench wishes to achieve. He wants specific and particular parliamentary scrutiny to be given to specific and particular proposals, and I cannot find that to be out of order. I am strongly inclined to support the amendment with the addendum that I am not sure that I understand the nature of the Bill. However, I am sure that the Minister will put me right.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has had the opportunity of reading our Second Reading debate. I see that he shakes his head. Perhaps the noble Lord might find time to read the debate because he would then have a clear understanding of the Bill's principles. In principle these parts of the Bill are enabling measures to allow privately-financed roads. However, as I have said in relation to earlier amendments, there will be no difference in the form of public inquiry.
As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, the proposed amendment would secure parliamentary control over every concession agreement entered into by the Secretary of State or a local highway authority. The Government believe that the right way to get infrastructure of this kind approved is, in common with other road schemes, through a form of planning procedure with public inquiries held locally and exploring all relevant matters. It would not be right to superimpose on that procedure a further procedure for parliamentary approval covering the same issues. I should also emphasise that concession agreements are contracts and will, no doubt, contain material that is properly treated as commercially confidential.
The procedure proposed in the amendment is unacceptable to the Government because it would add another layer of uncertainty and delay. Our purpose in this Bill is to have as streamlined a procedure as is possible compatible with the necessary public scrutiny of any road proposal on environmental and other grounds. Many people, and among them I remember the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, speaking on Second Reading, believe that the present procedure for authorising roads in this country causes delays and economic damage out of proportion to the benefits that it brings in terms of public participation. The

129
Government do not agree with that view and are committed to maintaining the present system. But any further delay is not acceptable.
It might be possible to meet the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, part way and to produce a report to Parliament at regular intervals as regards the roads proposed under the new Bill. I shall certainly consider the form that might take with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, I must wholeheartedly reject the amendment as it stands.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the provision would be a complete waste of time. Moreover, from what he said one might gather that we are thinking in terms of dozens of such concession agreements. I am certain that the department and the Minister do not visualise a vast number and therefore we are not talking about so many coming before Parliament for scrutiny—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Surely if the amendment were accepted it would be applicable to any number of such agreements as happened to be made. There is no limit in the amendment and if there happened to be a substantial number of agreements, the provision would bite on them all.
Lord Underhill: I always recognise the fact that it is dangerous to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He is an excellent debator and raises good points. However, we are concerned mainly with major schemes. The Minister has promised to look into the matter and consider whether a report might be made regularly to Parliament. In doing so, I hope that he will keep in mind the way in which we shall deal with major schemes which come forward. We should not want them to wait for some time until a number of agreements are brought before Parliament simultaneously.
Strangely enough, I turned the page to Clause 8 dealing with the amount of tolls chargeable by concessionaire. All those cases relate not merely to a negative procedure because subsection (6) provides that:
"Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".
In all cases relating to the amount of tolls chargeable there must be affirmative procedure. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that will be a great waste of time; but I hope that he does not now agree. I have noted carefully the Minister's reply. He has agreed to consider placing a report before Parliament, and I ask him to consider in particular major schemes. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:

("(5) Any concession agreement entered into under this section shall be in accordance with—

(a) any current statement of transport policy (including public transport policy) made by a local highway authority or passenger transport authority within whose area the agreement would be operable, or

130

(b) where no such statement is relevant in the case of any such authority, in accordance with any response on transport grounds given by that authority to an application from the person wishing to enter the agreement.

(6) A concession agreement shall include provisions which—

(a) ensure that the design of a special road to be constructed is pursuant to obligations specified in the agreement; and

(b) ensure that the improvement of a special road to be carried out pursuant to such obligations, is compatible with other highways or highway systems specified in the agreement, whether highways or highway systems which are in the locality of the special road or otherwise.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any new roads developed under the provisions of the Bill comply with local transport policies and fit in satisfactorily with the local highway network.
A key issue raised by several noble Lords on Second Reading was the potential conflict between the ability of the private sector to promote road schemes under the provisions of Parts I and II of the Bill, and the growing consensus in support of the need for more effective and balanced transport policies to cope with increasing levels of congestion and the environmental implications of transport policy.
In response to those reservations aired on Second Reading, the Minister attacked the concept of an integrated transport policy. I am sure he will not mind me using the word "attacked", because he attacked the points made by my noble friend. The Minister attempted to reassure the House that individual private sector schemes would be subject to the same assessment and inquiry process as public sector proposals.
The Minister acknowledged that the Bill does not claim to be the total solution to our transport problems, but he did not address the question of how to ensure that road schemes pursued under the provisions of this Bill contribute to rather than conflict with national environmental transport policy.
The approach adopted in the Government's environmental White Paper emphasised the need for strong links between land use and transport planning. Paragraph 5.65 of the White Paper skates:
"In the short term it is not possible to make sudden changes in the layout of towns and cities. But in the longer term the interactions between planning and transport become increasingly important".
The paragraph continues:
"The interactions between planning and transport are complex, and the Departments of Environment and Transport are proposing a joint study … of the relationship between development and travel patterns and ways of locating development to reduce travel distances and to increase transport choice".
Further, paragraph 8.11 of the White Paper comments:
"The Government believes that what is needed is a balanced traffic management policy, taking pressure off unsuitable routes and allowing environmental improvements, together with improvements to traffic flow on the strategic road network and improved public transport with greater priority for buses. It believes that in most cases this does not

131
make economic or environmental sense to increase capacity on roads leading into already congested areas simply to facilitate additional car commuting".
Those are short extracts from the Government's White Paper.
To achieve those objectives, it is essential that adequate protection exists to ensure that any roads developed under the provisions of this Bill comply with local transport policies. The definition of transport policy in paragraph (5) (a) of the amendment is specifically designed to include public transport in order to ensure that the type of balanced approach recommended by the Government in their environmental White Paper is achieved.
The second part of the amendment is designed to ensure that the link between a private road and the existing local road network is specifically addressed in the concession agreement. This amendment, together with the amendment introducing Parliamentary scrutiny should help to ensure that local anxieties in relation to the links with the local road network are resolved. Unfortunately that amendment was not carried, but the Minister is going to look at the principle of it. This is an important matter, taking into account the Government's environmental White Paper. If they do not accept the wording of the amendment, I hope that the Government can accept its principle. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The first half of this amendment attempts to embody in legal form the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on Second Reading on integrated transport policies. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I did not so much attack integrated transport policies but merely said that no one had ever explained to me what was meant by that phrase and that it means different things to different people. The complex and confusing nature of the amendment reinforces my view that the concept of an integrated transport policy is itself hopelessly confused.
The philosophy behind the amendment, in so far as I can discern it, seems to be that ideally all the transport infrastructure and public transport in this country should be planned, if not provided by local authorities, and that for infrastructure or bus services or the rest to be provided by anyone else is very much a second best, accepted grudgingly and only if it conforms to the plans of the local authorities. The Government's approach is the reverse; namely that the market should be allowed to play the fullest possible part in meeting demand, to the benefit of the consumer. Of course, a great deal of public control over what the private sector does is necessary on safety and environmental grounds, and to ensure common standards where necessary on the whole of the country's road network. Moreover, and importantly, recourse to compulsory purchase should be allowed only where it is demonstrably in the interests of the public, and this requires a greater degree of influence
132
by a public authority than where planning permission only is involved. But the veto this amendment would give to local authorities is quite unacceptable.
All these will be taken care of before a concessionaire can begin building a road, some before the signing of the agreement, and some during the authorisation procedure after it. We are determined that concessions will be granted only after competitions, in accordance with the procedures contained in the European directive on public works. Public inquiries and environmental impact assessments will be required for privately financed roads as for all special roads. I am satisfied that no more is necessary. The amendment would confuse and delay; and it would discourage the private sector from using its entrepreneurial and managerial skills for the improvement of the infrastructure of this country—an aim which I think all Members of the Committee share —without the unnecessary confusion and bureaucracy imposed by the amendment, which I cannot advise the Committee to accept.
The sentiments behind the second half of the amendment are not objectionable in principle. It is however very obscurely drafted and unnecessary. We shall of course ensure, and local highway authorities will ensure, that concession agreements insist on high standards and will monitor concessionaires' performance, as is provided for in both the Dartford and the Severn agreements. Moreover, an assumption behind the amendment seems to be that the concession agreement is the only thing necessary to authorise the construction of a privately financed road. I would remind the Committee that each concession agreement will be followed by a scheme, under Section 16 of the Highways Act 1980, just like any other special road. This scheme will be published in draft and will be subject to a public inquiry. No independent inspector would recommend the making of a scheme which did not contain adequate provisions as to the design of the road. All local highway authorities which have the right—and which they would no doubt exercise—to appear at the public inquiry, would press very hard any worries they had about the compatibility of the proposed new or improved road with, and its effect on, the highway network for which they are responsible. Long and sometimes painful experience of the Department of Transport is that independent inspectors take a great deal of notice of such representations, as do the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport when they take their decision on the inspector's report.
I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment—the first part because of its total incompatibility with the philosophy behind the Bill, and the second part because it is unnecessary.
Lord Underhill: I am very sorry that the Minister added those last words because I thought that he indicated in his earlier remarks that the second part of the amendment was not unacceptable. Therefore, I thought he might look again at that matter and I was about to thank him for so doing.
This is not the time to debate what is Labour Party policy. In the light of the Minister's comments today

133
and his remarks on Second Reading, at some stage we must have a debate on what is Labour Party policy because there is a 22-page document on the Labour Party's transport policy. It is made clear that we do not intend to have a fixed national transport plan.
If the noble Lord is criticising what is said in this amendment, then he must look very carefully at the Government's White Paper from which I quoted three rather important extracts which were all related to the points made in this amendment.
I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said and I shall consider whether it will be necessary to raise the matter at the next stage. I note also the favourable comments that he made earlier in his speech regarding the second part of the amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) A concession agreement shall provide that the concessionaire shall permit the driver or rider of any powered vehicle, and may provide that the concessionaire shall permit the rider of any pedal-cycle or any pedestrian, to use, subject to or exempt from the payment of toll, the special road to which it relates.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 34, 35, 44 and 45. These amendments deal almost exclusively with powered two-wheel vehicles; in other words, motorcycles or mopeds. At the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke on behalf of motorcyclists, of which I am one. There are not that many motorcyclists in your Lordships' Chamber. My representations at that time were received on the whole sympathetically. I expect the same sympathy to be given to these amendments. I apologise that they should have been tabled so late. However, they are not complicated, and I do not intend to pursue them aggressively at this stage.
Amendment No. 10 reflects the fear of the two main bodies which represent motorcyclists in this country that there will not be provision made by the concessionaires—those who operate toll roads—for motorcycles in the way in which those bodies think fit. There is a further fear at this stage which is mainly due to an ignorance of the types of roads about which we are speaking; on some roads there are a large number of motorcycles on a regular basis; on other roads there are relatively few. If those roads on which relatively few motorcycles travel were to become toll roads, and at the end of the toll road there was the necessity to pay a sum which may involve coins, there would necessarily be delays. That could cause aggravation to motorists and other road users, and not least embarrassment to the motorcyclist. I shall come on to that when we consider the last of the amendments, which deals with sheltered provision.
It is the delay which is likely to make the provider of these toll roads feel that he would like to exclude motorcycles altogether. He may take the view that the most practical measure would be to allow motorcycles to go through free of charge. In that event, they would
134
not cause any blockage at the point of payment. However, that is unlikely; indeed, motorcyclists would not expect that favoured treatment. As is dealt with in the amendments to which I speak, the proportionate toll for motorcycles being one-third that charged for a car, generally speaking, is about right. Motorcyclists expect that kind of differential.
Motorcycles are definitely being used more, probably due to the increased congestion on the roads. Yesterday I attended the 1990 motorcycle show at the Birmingham Centre. It is remarkable how many new models across the range are being produced. Manufacturers are expecting more customers for their products. I am happy to say that after a number of years there are some British products being produced. Amendment No. 10 seeks to ensure that the concessionaire provides for motorcyclists and does not seek to exclude them. The amendment also contains a provision, where appropriate, for pedestrians and users of pedal cycles.
Amendment No. 28 deals with the toll order and the maximum tolls therein to be charged. I covered that aspect when dealing with the differential between the various classes of traffic on the roads. The amendment seeks to include that in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 38—as is often the case in your Lordships' Chamber—seek to replace the word "may" by the word "shall". In both cases we are dealing with the maximum charges to be made. Any mention in these amendments of maximum charges as they relate to motorcycles does not in any way affect the general principle established in the Bill that concessionaires may set the charges as appropriate, and the ratios are geared in every case to that which is charged for a car.
The final amendment deals with sheltered areas. It is an important point and it would be appreciated if it were provided for in any obligations the concessionaire may have. I do not know whether other Members of the Committee have experienced a difficulty that I had in France. I do not see why a similar situation might not occur here. Certainly in Northern France when motorcycles are leaving a paying area of the autoroute there are often high winds and an extreme chill factor. Motorcyclists are aware of that and it is dealt with by appropriate clothing. Anyone who has had the difficulty of being in high winds with cold hands and attempting to hold a ticket and small change, then facing the embarrassment of the ticket blowing away and a queue building up behind them, will recognise the difficulties facing the motorcyclist. In those cases the provision of some form of shelter—it does not need to be elaborate, but some form of windbreak or shelter against driving rain —would enable the motorcyclist to prepare himself before paying the appropriate charges. That would result in less embarrassment for him and less inconvenience for those who follow.
That is the case for the motorcyclist at this stage. It is not suggested that those who will provide the services, whatever they may be and whatever roads are involved, will seek to exclude motorcyclists. It would be unjust and discriminatory if they were to do so.

135
However, we feel that there is a need for certain matters to be stated and dealt with in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I must admit that I am intrigued by this group of amendments. The enthusiasm of the noble Viscount for all things on two wheels—or indeed three—is well known to the Chamber. His desire to improve the facilities available for their riders is no doubt commendable. Nevertheless, the sort of privately-financed road which the noble Viscount imagines these amendments will produce is a very different beast from any which the Government or the private companies we have consulted have in mind.
Let us examine the first of the group of amendments. Taken at face value, it means that any road provided by a concessionaire must be open to all powered vehicles, from the heaviest lorry, the slowest tractor, to Mr. Sinclair's creation—if anyone still remembers it—and so forth, simply to ensure that motorcycles are not excluded. Under that system it would be impossible to provide a normal motorway, as the Birmingham northern relief road is expected to be, let alone a car-only or lorry-only road, as is sometimes discussed in the context of private finance.
I would have been less puzzled if the noble Viscount had tabled an amendment for a national network of motorcycle-only roads. I am also intrigued by the proposed tariff in the second amendment listing tolls for different vehicles. Perhaps I should call it a shadow tariff since the one unknown in the equation is what the car toll will be, on which all else depends. A bizarre arrangement of this kind is hardly calculated to encourage the promoter of the road to attract custom from riders of vehicles with two or three wheels.
It has been claimed that the damage to the road surface by these vehicles is infinitesimal. But the purpose of tolls is not simply to defray the cost of maintenance. These vehicles already pay lower rates of VED, or, in the case of pedal vehicles, none at all. Moreover, the vehicles still take up almost the same amount of road space as a small saloon car, at least if safe distances are kept by other motorists, as I am sure the noble Viscount agrees should be the case.
The last amendment proposes the provision of under-cover parking at toll plazas or other places where motor cyclists and pedal cyclists must pay tolls or receive documentation. Again, I am slightly puzzled. I can understand the desirability of shelter from the wind and rain; but why parking? Surely there is nothing to stop for except to pay the toll and move on. I take the point that the noble Viscount makes about freezing hands, and so forth.
Before I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment, I wish to say a few more positive words about what the Government are doing for motor cyclists. Our chief concern is for their safety. Their casualty rate is the highest for any category of vehicle users. To this end we have tightened up the training and testing requirements for motor cyclists. This month we have introduced compulsory basic training
136
for new motor cyclists with the support of the industry and rider groups. Holders of provisional licences issued on or after 1st December will not be permitted to ride on the road until they have completed their training course. Once on the road, learner motor cyclists may no longer carry pillion passengers whose presence significantly alters the handling capacity of the machine, particularly lightweight ones.
Last year we introduced a stiffer on-road test in which the examiner follows the candidate around the test course with radio communication. Spilt diesel on the road is particularly hazardous for motor cyclists. Therefore, we are amending the construction and use regulations to make it a specific offence to fail to maintain a diesel tank in good condition. We take every opportunity to make drivers aware of the needs of all vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and those on two wheels.
I hope that these remarks will satisfy the Committee that the Government have the best interests of motor cyclists at heart. Only when we have achieved an acceptable level of safety can we wholeheartedly encourage the use of these vehicles in the way that the noble Viscount would wish. However, I fail to see how we can place the burden for this encouragement firmly on the shoulders of the private sector, not by offering it inducements but by coercing it with all kinds of regulations and restrictions.
If the Government's private finance policy bears fruit the private sector will make provision for motor cyclists which the market—that is, the user—considers appropriate and is prepared to pay for. There is nothing in the proposed legislation to inhibit concessionaires from providing facilities for motor cyclists and cyclists if there is adequate demand to justify it. Therefore, I do not see that the ideas put forward in these amendments can possibly benefit either the private sector or the motor cyclists and pedal cyclists in whose interests they have been tabled. They will simply reduce the viability of financing what otherwise might be a perfectly good commercial proposition. I hope that with that explanation the noble Viscount will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not propose to comment at length on the speech made by the noble Viscount in introducing these amendments save to say that I believe he did the Committee a service by raising those questions. It also enabled the Minister, almost by way of parenthesis, to make a useful comment about the steps being taken to reinforce the provisions of the law relating to motor cyclists. The Committee is most grateful to him for that and we shall study carefully what he said in that respect.
Almost by way of parenthesis as well, I want to say something about a group of motor cyclists who seem to cause many of us a great deal of anxiety. I refer to those who carry messages around. I believe they are called couriers. They travel around at inordinately high speeds on highly congested roads. They thread their way between lines of traffic so that they imperil

137
not only their own lives but those of other people as well. A pedestrian crossing the road through a line of congested traffic is taking his or her life in his or her hands when facing that kind of perilous driving.
I am sure that many offences committed in such circumstances are not noticed or they are incapable of being taken further simply because these people drive at such ferocious speeds that it is almost impossible to contemplate taking their index numbers. I am sure the Minister himself must have experienced this kind of driving. The Committee would be reassured to learn that the Government have this issue in mind. It is not strictly germane to the points that have been raised, but the Minister interrupted himself—and why should he not do so since it is his Bill and he is at liberty to interrupt within the bounds of reasonable order?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We take seriously the issue of bad driving by motor cyclists. In many cases that refers to motor cycle couriers in London and no doubt in other big cities. I needed notice of the question relating to motor cycle couriers. I believe that we have attempted to establish a code of practice by which the reputable companies have agreed to abide. Before I say anything on a subject about which I am not sufficiently knowledgeable, perhaps I should say that I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Tordoff: My noble friend has certainly allowed people to expose their prejudices about motor cyclists on all sides of the argument, but I do not intend to follow down that track. I was interested to hear the Minister say in reply to my noble friend that one of the problems with the amendment is that it would mean that all roads would be open to pedal cyclists, mopeds, and so forth, which would cause difficulties in regard to the possibility of a lorry-only road in the future. This is the first specific reference we have had to the possibility of a lorry-only road. Earlier the Minister said that privately funded roads would be open to all normal motor vehicles. Can he explain the discrepancy?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I said that there may be lorry-only roads in the future. There will be public highways but it is possible, as in the case of motorways, to restrict certain vehicles from using a motorway. For example, pedal cycles, motor cycles under a certain capacity and various other kinds of vehicles are not allowed on motorways. I referred to the Birmingham northern relief road. If that is to be a motorway it will have restrictions on it.
Lord Tordoff: I understand and accept that point of view. I find the concept of lorry-only roads extremely disturbing at a time when we should be trying to encourage freight to go on to rail and not on to more and bigger lorries. It is that aspect of the matter which is a little frightening and worrying.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the Minister for his response, which will be read with interest by myself and by the bodies interested in motor cycling. I cannot understand why he is so puzzled, but perhaps the amendments are not drafted in a clear enough manner. He suggested that he would have been less surprised if I had proposed a road network especially
138
for motor cyclists. It may be that I am already deemed to be eccentric, and if I had said that perhaps I would have been viewed as not worthy of further attention.
I take note of what the Minister said and thank him for his remarks. As regards the under-cover provisions, the cover does not necessarily have to have a roof on it but sides are necessary in order to give protection from the wind and rain. The time spent at the tolls will be fairly short. The reference to parking areas means that there needs to be an area slightly away from where the toll is paid rather than have the cumbersome searching process which I have described taking place in the queue at the point of payment. A shield of some kind would be adequate for that purpose.
I take note of what the noble Lord said about safety. The additional testing and other measures introduced by the Government are wholly admirable and will make an enormous impact on injuries and loss of life, particularly in regard to those setting out to learn to use motorcycles responsibly and carefully on our roads. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his contribution to a debate which has proved much more interesting than I had foreseen. There is definitely a problem with people who ride for hire and who deliver packages or goods within a time limit. That encourages dangerous behaviour that flaunts the law which other motorcyclists who are not motorcycle messengers generally observe. It would not be fair to paint them black with the same brush. Something must be done. I sense that the noble Lord has it in mind that something will be done.
At this stage all we need is some proper policing. There should be observation by police officers of simple things like motorcyclists proceeding on the wrong side of traffic islands and crossing double white lines. Such things are done almost exclusively by those who ride for hire.
I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. I shall read what he has said with interest and perhaps return with a more specific proposal at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Exercise of highway functions by concessionaire]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("functions") and insert ("powers to make regulations or orders, or give directions,").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment to the list of highway authority functions that cannot be transferred under an agreement to a concessionaire. Clause 2(2) as drafted would not allow any functions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to be exercised by the concessionaire. The amendment would alter this so as to exclude only powers to make subordinate legislation. As a matter of policy these should remain in the hands of central or local government, although under Clause 3(2) the concessionaire must be consulted before they are used in relation to a concession road. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert:
("(bb) if it appears to the authority that such exercise is necessary or expedient in the interests of the long term maintenance of the road, or").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I return to a point which I sought to develop during the Second Reading debate. I can do no better than refer to what I said on that occasion:
"If a concession agreement is to last for 30 years, is there not a likelihood that in the last period of that term—perhaps in the last 10 years—the concessionaire will apply short-term rather than long-term considerations in regard to maintenance? The effect might easily be to leave a substantial backlog of long-term structural maintenance. Does the Minister contemplate that as a reasonable possibility? If so, what do the Government propose to do about it? The implications are very serious indeed. If the agreement is with the Department of Transport, there would be clear implications for the trunk road maintenance programme, quite possibly during a period in which a different government are in office".—[Official Report, 20/11/90; co1.635.]
The Minister did not directly address my point at that stage but he was kind enough to write to me. I thank him. His letter said:
"You suggested that the concessionaire would have little or no interest during the last years of the concession in maintaining the facility. I do not think this is true. Throughout the life of the concession he will have a direct financial interest in keeping the road up to scratch as a poorly maintained road will lose him custom, and a slightly less direct one in preserving a good reputation since that will stand him in good stead in further competitions. Moreover the concession agreement between the highway authority and the promoter will ensure that the responsibility for maintenance will rest with the latter and that he will be under a duty to hand the road back to the highway authority in good condition. This will be monitored by the highway authority who will have access to the road with devices such as the high speed road monitor and who will be able under Clause 2(3) to carry out the necessary remedial work in case of any gross dereliction of duty".
In my submission it is perfectly possible in the short term to maintain a road in what appears, on the surface, to be good condition while neglecting the long-term maintenance needs. An example of that might be resurfacing when the road should be reconstructed. I ask the Minister to reply specifically to that point.
The first part of the amendment is intended to address the very issue to which I have just referred. That is done by adding the interests of long-term maintenance of the road to the factors set out in Clause 2(3), enabling the highway authority to exercise the function transferred by the concession agreement to the concessionaire. If the highway authority had evidence that the concessionaire was neglecting long-term maintenance of the road, the amendment would enable the authority to step in and take any necessary action. It is essential that where the highway authority exercises a function transferred to the concessionaire it should be able to recover the cost of doing so. That is particularly important if highway maintenance functions are added to the list of reserve powers.
The Bill as drafted does not provide for any cost recovery by the authority. Therefore the second part of the amendment would enable the highway authority to recover such costs. In those circumstances I hope the Government will feel that that is an equitable way out of the problem and that they will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was speaking also to Amendment Nos. 13 and 14, which have been separated on the groupings list. Although I listened with interest to what the Minister said in his letter to the noble Lord, I feel that one can foresee circumstances in which the concessionaire might easily let the road structure run down towards the end of the concession period. After all, we are talking about quite long concession times, anything up to 50 years. It is likely that in those circumstances reconstruction will be necessary. One needs only to miss out one of those reconstruction periods for the road to be in a much worse condition that it looks. As the noble Lord said, the highway authority ought to be able to recover the costs of setting it right.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the Minister rises to reply, perhaps I may say that Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 have been listed together.
Lord Swinfen: Can the Minister tell the Committee what powers of inspection of the road the highway authority will have? Without those powers it will not know whether the road needs to be reconstructed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: With the leave of the Committee, I shall deal first with Amendment No. 13. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord but I am not persuaded that there is need for an amendment in this respect. The safeguards contained in Clause 2(3), which I admit are necessary, are sufficient to ensure that the road user will never be at the mercy of an irresponsible concessionaire. The provisions of the concession agreement between the highway authority and the promoter should also ensure that the responsibility for all types of maintenance—both short term and long term—will fall to the concessionaire. Under the agreement, he will be under a duty to pass the facility to the highway authority in good condition at the end of the concession period.
In reply to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, I should point out that the facility will be monitored by the highway authority, which will have access to the road with devices such as the high-speed road monitor, and under Clause 2(3) it will be able to carry out the necessary remedial work in the case of serious neglect.
Quite apart from the pressures of the negotiated agreements between the concessionaire and the highway authority, the risk of losing business during the concession period should guarantee that the concessionaire will keep the facility properly maintained. He will also be keen to preserve a good reputation as that will stand him in good stead in tendering for other work from the highway authority. Subsection (3) (c) would apply to anything covered by

141
the amendment. The highway authority would be entitled to step in if it found that necessary structural maintenance was not being carried out.
I now turn to deal with Amendment No. 14. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the concessionaire should pay the full cost of any maintenance work undertaken on the concession road. It is after all in return for maintaining the road, as well as constructing it, that he takes the tolls. We had envisaged a provision along these lines in each concession agreement. It would also act as a deterrent against the concessionaire abandoning his duties if he knew that the cost of the highway authority intervening to rectify the situation would fall to him. But I am persuaded by the noble Lord that a statutory provision along these lines would be useful, if not strictly necessary. The drafting of the amendment will not do as it stands, but I undertake to put one forward on Report.
I hope that with that assurance, and the explanation I have been able to give, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I am sure that the noble Lord will be most grateful for that undertaking. I also am grateful as my name is attached to the amendment. However, I wonder whether the Government would consider looking again at Amendment No. 13. It seems to me that the Minister is legislating on the basis of the reasonable and sensible concessionaire. During the passage of the Bills which pass through this Chamber we must take account of people such as the irresponsible concessionaire. It is to those people that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is directing his mind. I believe that the Government are being a little too optimistic in this respect.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should like to reinforce the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. This is an area in which things are not always what they seem to be. Consequently, I believe that the Government should ensure that the utmost caution is applied in this connection and that this issue is covered in the Bill. I merely ask the Minister to think again on the matter. I am, however, most grateful to him for his response as regards Amendment No. 14. We look forward to seeing how this provision will appear in the Bill in its amended form.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, raised the very important issue of inspection. I am most grateful to him for so doing. What he said gives rise to another point to which I hope the Minister will address his mind. I refer to the fact that the highway authorities would be under an obligation to carry out such inspections. But what about the costs involved? Who would be responsible for them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not certain that I can give the noble Lord an answer to that question at this stage of the proceedings. I suspect that there is somewhere in the Bill a provision which somehow escapes my attention at present. However, I shall return to the matter at a later stage.
In response to the first amendment, I said we believe that there is nothing in the noble Lord's
142
argument that is not covered by Clause 2(3) (c). The situation envisaged by the noble Lord is already amply dealt with by the provisions of the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not totally convinced on that issue. However, we shall reflect on what the Minister said. It is indeed a complicated issue. We may wish to return to the matter at a later stage if we are not satisfied about the position. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Provisions as to traffic regulation]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert:
("(7) Section 105 of the 1984 Act shall apply in relation to a road subject to a concession.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to state clearly in legislation that holders of orange badges cannot be clamped on the new toll roads. It is currently illegal under Section 105 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to wheel-clamp orange badge holders on the public highway. In my view, that provision must be extended to cover private roads and must be written into the Bill.
I have no objection—neither, I believe, have those who put their names to the amendment—to disabled people paying the same fines as others for unlawful parking. However, if the vehicle of a disabled person is wheel-clamped, he may not even be able to get to the relevant authority to arrange for it to be unclamped. Indeed, he may not be able to reach a telephone.
It is vital that such a provision should be clearly stated in the legislation and that it should be made clear to the wheel-clamping authorities. If such a provision were merely included in regulations, I suspect that it would not be brought to the attention of such authorities. However, if it is a matter of law it will be up to the concessionaires to ensure that the position is clearly understood. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I fully support this amendment. The Opposition feels that the Government need to be very clear on the matter. The issue was raised by many noble Lords during the course of the Second Reading debate. However, it has also been put forward by RADAR, the joint committee on mobility for disabled people, the RNIB and the Spinal Injuries Association. Therefore, it has powerful support outside the House. The points raised so eloquently by the noble Lord relate to matters which need to be addressed.
It appears that there have been some breaches of the law in that some disabled people have been illicitly wheel-clamped. The situation gives rise to acute concern. I wonder whether the Minister has any information about incidents of this nature. If he has, perhaps he will be able to tell us what steps have been taken to deal with the people who carry out such wheel-clamping operations. Further, has he had any discussions with RADAR? I ask that because, following the Second Reading debate, he must be

143
aware that the issue is one which gives rise to great anxiety. If the situation is indeed that which has been presented by these organisations can the Minister say what the Government are proposing to do to ensure that such incidents are not repeated?
We must also address the question of the towing away of disabled people's vehicles. Of course disabled people must not behave irresponsibly by parking their vehicles in hazardous positions. I am sure that the organisations concerned would be the first to recognise that fact. If mistakes occur, disabled people are subject to the most appalling prejudice. If a vehicle is towed away, it is not easy for them to do anything about it, let alone go to the police. This is a matter which the Minister is obliged to address clearly and unequivocally. As I said, I fully support not just the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, but also the amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I too support the amendment. We are talking about severely disabled people because orange badge holders should be only those who are severely disabled. I shall give an example of how impractical it would be to wheel clamp the vehicles of severely disabled people. I was driving along the A.1 when my hand controls fell into my lap. I had no brakes. It was a frightening experience. Luckily I was able to move on to the grass between the two carriageways. It took two people —a policeman and a good Samaritan—to carry me across the road into a police car which took me home. My car had to remain where it was. It is a major problem for disabled people when they are left without their cars. I hope the Minister understands that point.
RADAR gives an example of a severely disabled person who was attending for treatment at a physiotherapy clinic. The hospital was on a private road. His car was wheel clamped. Following that, he did not attend his physiotherapy clinic. We are talking about a serious problem, and I hope that the Minister will be understanding.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I agree entirely with everything that has been said in support of the amendment, but I have to say it is unnecessary. All concession roads will be highways. There will be no difference in the application of the law on wheel clamping or towing away from that on any other highway. Sections 104 to 106 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 are expressed in such a way that wherever wheel clamping is authorised, the exemptions for orange badge holders and for overstaying meter bays will also apply. Concession roads will be treated for that purpose just like any other road.
At present there are no proposals to allow wheel clamping outside London, nor are there are any proposals for privately financed roads within the presently defined clamping zone. In any event, I can assure the Committee that the safeguards for orange badge holders will continue to apply.
144
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether I had heard of any examples of disabled people's vehicles being wheelclamped on the public highway. I have to say that I have not. If there are examples, no doubt they will be brought to my attention. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was of course referring to a private road, presumably on private property. That is not the same as the roads proposed in the Bill. They will be public highways subject to the regulations I have outlined. I can reassure my noble friend that the situation will be as he would want it. I hope that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I can ask the Minister a question. Will that provision be written clearly into the regulations? The roads are new and people might look at them differently.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It must be made clear that the Road Traffic Regulation Act in which the provisions are set out will apply equally to the new roads as to any other public highway. The provisions do not need to be written into regulations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for those observations. Those of us who are concerned with the amendment will want to study carefully what he has said to be assured that orange badge holders will be dealt with in the way that he has defined. We should like to hear from the Minister whether, in the light of the observations that have been made by the organisations involved, by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, his department will undertake to have consultations with RADAR about the practical problems that appear to be occurring.
It is bad enough for the vehicle of a disabled person to be clamped in an ordinary thoroughfare for being on a yellow or a double yellow line. It would be infinitely worse were it to occur on a more major thoroughfare. It would be advantageous were the Minister to indicate to the Committee that he is prepared to enter into discussions with those organisations to discover the extent of the problem that is arising and its gravity, and, if he is minded to agree, to report to this place on those discussions. That would be helpful, especially if it could be done before Report.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure what the noble Lord thinks we should be talking about: there are none of these privately financed roads in existence. The situation that he describes does not arise yet. The Department of Transport has a disability unit which is constantly in touch with organisations representing disabled people. I shall ensure that the subject is put on the agenda, but, as I have said, there is no question of there being a problem.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is a potential problem.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: There is no question of it being a potential problem.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not understand that at all. I should have thought the proposition I advanced was

145
a reasonable one. The organisations have expressed concern. It is a matter which the Minister accepts is cause for concern, otherwise—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, I do not.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is a sad state of affairs if the Minister is prepared merely to brush aside representations in a somewhat, with respect, cavalier manner. The organisations representing disabled people have circulated their anxieties to Members on both sides of the Committee. The Minister must be aware of the situation. They would not have gone to that trouble if they had not been alarmed by the fact that disabled people are being treated in an objectionable and illegal way. I am not primarily concerned with the issue of the new roads. We are concerned with a day-to-day problem on which the organisations have expressed strong views.
Regardless of the passage of the Bill, I ask the Minister to undertake to address those concerns. He should obtain more evidence of what gives rise to anxiety and of the number of cases of wheel clamping and then return to the matter. Writing to Members of the Committee is not satisfactory. I am trying to help the Minister, not a hinder him.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I appreciate what the noble Lord says. When I said that there was no cause for concern, I meant as regards the Bill. The noble Lord mentioned what may be happening at present on ordinary roads; I said that I would look into the matter in the near future. There is no cause for concern over what is in the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: The Government must be preparing guidelines as to the type of matter that will appear in the concession agreements. Will my noble friend undertake to include this matter in the guidelines?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As I have attempted to explain, it will not be necessary to put this matter into the guidelines because these roads will be subject to the same regulations as are public roads at the moment. Wheel clamping will not be allowed for orange badge holders.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether my noble friend has quite grasped the point. I accept entirely what he said about the present state of the law, but it appears that, notwithstanding the present state of the law, on existing roads wheel clamping of the cars of disabled people takes place. Surely therefore it would be sensible, when the Minister lays down guidelines for the new types of road, if he were simply to invite the attention of those operating the roads to the present state of the law and the fact that they are not entitled to allow clamping to take place on cars belonging to disabled people. I do not see why he finds difficulty in giving that undertaking.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not believe that there would be any difficulty in giving that undertaking. The concessionaires would have to be aware that they are subject to road traffic regulations not only in this case but in many other matters.
Lord Swinfen: The noble Lord said that there was no difficulty in giving the undertaking that he would
146
bring the matter to the attention of concessionaires in the guidelines but he has not actually given that undertaking. Will he do so?
Lord Tordoff: It is not often that I find myself springing to the defence of the Minister but he has made the position quite clear. On the face of the Bill there is a clear undertaking that the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 will apply to these roads as they do to other roads.
If the law is being broken by the wheel dampers in other areas, then clearly it is a general problem that does not relate to this Bill. I should have thought that the Minister's undertaking was sufficient to ensure that the disability unit in the Department of Transport—and I have the highest respect for the work it does—will once again have been alerted by the discussions that have taken place in the Committee this afternoon. It will doubtless seek any further instances from RADAR and other organisations which it has not heard about. It will then presumably encourage the police and others to make sure that the law functions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for summing up what I have been attempting to say for some little while. He put it better than I did.
Lord Swinfen: I believe that the Minister has finally understood the danger in which disabled people are placed if their vehicles are clamped. He is young and fit; if necessary he can walk 20 miles to obtain help. A disabled person may be stuck, possibly in bad weather. I shall read with care what has been said and if I think it necessary I shall bring the matter back at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Leasing of land to concessionaire]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No.16:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert:
("(1A) Any lease of land granted under subsection (1) shall be for highway related functions only. For this purpose "highway related functions" has the same meaning as in section 2(2) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to limit any lease of land under the Bill from the highway authority to the concessionaire to that required for highway related purposes. A possible use of the Bill would be for the highway authority to lease land for development such as an out of town shopping centre, accessible only by the new road. For the developer, the development and the new road will be seen as a package. The development could cross-subsidise the road and in return become a limited monopoly. Such developments may well be against existing development plans, both for the protection of the existing town centres and also for the protection of green belts, whether formal or otherwise.
Developments in this capacity are not limited to retail centres but may also include housing and leisure facilities. Developers could put pressure on the local highway authority on the basis that, by allowing the

147
development to cross-subsidise the road, the highway authority would get the new road sooner. This may compromise the position of the authority in areas such as London and the metropolitan areas where the highway and the planning authorities are the same. The way in which the planning considerations are dealt with and the weight attached to the individual items within that balance may be affected.
Outside London and the metropolitan areas, the planning authorities and the highway authorities are separate. The former are at district level, the latter at county level. Such development-led pressure could prove to be an intolerable point of conflict between the different tiers of authority and it is not conducive to good government. Furthermore, the process is not good for users.
If a retail development is proposed, as with all out of town centres, there could be increased competition with the town centre, with the resulting closure of retail facilities there. In turn, this would lead to more people being obliged to use the new centre and the new road. Not only would these users have to use the toll road, they would also have to travel further. Both factors mean that they would have to pay more to use the road. In terms, this is against the principles of the Government's own White Paper on the environment, which calls for a reduced need for people to travel. This trend also fuels a vicious circle of declining town centre activities.
It is not the purpose of the amendment to prevent development or even to prevent the kind of development described above in cases where it is sensible. It will, however, ensure that the Bill is not used to support undesirable development either directly or indirectly and it leaves each case to be judged on its merits. If the Minister cannot accept the wording of the amendment, I hope that he will accept the spirit. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Perhaps the noble Lord can explain one point. His amendment refers to "highway related functions" in inverted commas and suggests that the words should have,
"the same meaning as in section 2(2) of this Act".
In Clause 2(2) we find "highway functions" referred to in inverted commas and then given a meaning. However, there is no reference to "highway related functions". Perhaps this was a slip of the typewriter and the noble Lord meant to say that "the highway related functions" shall have the same meaning as "highway functions" in Clause 2(2). Perhaps the noble Lord can explain that.
Lord Underhill: I readily accept the correction of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as we always do when he rises on a point of emendation. However, we wish the Minister to agree to the principle; we can always adjust the wording when we come to the Report stage.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Fortunately, the amendment is unnecessary anyway. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that. Any lease under Clause 4(1) must be related to the concessionaire's functions under the agreement. Clause 1(1) makes it clear that
148
these functions relate to the design, construction, maintenance, operation or improvement of a highway. A highway authority can acquire land only for a highway related function. What it cannot acquire it cannot lease. The powers of a highway authority to acquire land are laid down in Part XII of the Highways Act 1980 and are strictly related to what it needs to acquire in its capacity as a highway authority.
Of course, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a concessionaire from buying land voluntarily and using it to provide facilities which will make his road more attractive to the user. To do this, he would have to go through the normal planning controls like any other developer. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, recognises that that would sometimes have its merits and sometimes not. This would be the concessionaire's land and would have nothing to do with a lease from the highway authority. Land acquired by the highway authority could only be used by the concessionaire for a purpose for which the highway authority itself could use it.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that the position is watertight and that this amendment would not make it any tighter than it already is.
Lord Underhill: I appreciate part of what the Minister has said but he ignores the reference I made in moving the amendment when I said that there could be pressure on the local authority which considers that this need should be met by cross-subsidising development work with the road. It is perfectly clear under Clause 4(1) that a highway authority may enter into a concession agreement for the lease of land,
"if it appears to the authority to be expedient".
However, the authority may consider it expedient to do so because it wants to get the job done quicker. That is a danger. The point about additional travel that may be required to out-of-town developments and the effect that any out-of-town development might have on a town centre is one that I believe the Minister would not wish to ignore. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said, but we may need to return to this point at a later stage.
Lord Tordoff: It may clarify the situation if the Minister will reinforce a point that he has already made. Are we saying that the highway authority would not be in a position to issue concession land other than for the reasons prescribed in the Bill: in other words, it would not be possible, even under pressure, for a highway authority to give concession land for purposes other than road building, maintenance, improvements or other such matters?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is correct. I shall repeat one sentence from my original remarks. A highway authority can acquire land only for a highway related function. What a highway authority cannot acquire, it cannot lease. The powers of the highway authority to acquire land as laid down in the 1980 Act are strictly related to what it needs to acquire in its capacity as a highway authority.
Lord Underhill: I hope the Minister will let me know where the sentence that he read out in his original remarks appears in the Bill. Clause 4(1) states:

149
"A highway authority who have entered into a concession agreement may grant to the concessionaire a lease of any land if it appears to the authority to be expedient to do so for the purpose of or in connection with the exercise by the concessionaire of his functions under the agreement".
However we should consider what agreement may be reached with the concessionaire. We should consider carefully whether an agreement may be reached which conflicts with the point of my amendment.
Lord Tordoff: Is it not the case that under Clause 1 a concession agreement is clearly spelt out? It is the relationship between Clause 1 and Clause 4 that bears on this matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is correct. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will read what I said originally in reply to his amendment. He will see the relationship between Clause 1 and Clause 4 in that reply. I hope that the matter will be clear to him and that he will agree with me that the position is watertight.
Lord Underhill: I am always ready to do what the Minister says. I shall read carefully what he said. I always read carefully every word that the Minister says, and I shall read his speech with particular care on this occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Procedure in connection with toll orders]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 85, line 13, leave out ("it") and insert ("they").
Page 85, line 14, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").
The noble Lord said: These are two technical amendments. Elsewhere in the Bill an authority is referred to as "they" rather than "it". These amendments have been introduced for the sake of consistency. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 85, line 31, after ("2") insert ("or any person defined as a statutory consultee under the General Development Order of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is of importance and substance because under paragraph 6 to Schedule 2 on page 85 of the Bill we discover when local inquiries can be held. We discover that they can be held,
"If an objection is received by the Secretary of State within the period specified for making objections, and is not withdrawn, then—
(a) if the objection is from a local authority on whom a copy of the notice is required to be served under paragraph 2, the Secretary of State shall cause a local inquiry to be held".
The words of paragraph 6(1) (b) are fairly restrictive. It states:
150
"if the objection is from any other person appearing to the Secretary of State to be affected"
—whatever "affected" may mean—
"he shall cause a local inquiry to be held unless he is satisfied that in the circumstances of the case it is unnecessary".
There is some anxiety on the part of the Council for the Protection of Rural England (which I share) that we need to enlarge the opportunities for the holding of local inquiries. If the Countryside Commission and the three new bodies that are to replace the Nature Conservancy Council, English Heritage or the national park authorities—those bodies may not, strictly speaking, be affected by a proposal —feel that there should be a local inquiry, surely it is only right that the opportunity for an inquiry should be given by the Bill.
Along with my noble friend Lord Norrie, I have tabled Amendment No. 19. That amendment refers to the definition of,
"a statutory consultee under the General Development Order of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971".
It might have been better to have included the words "made under" instead of "of" so that the amendment would read,
"made under the Town and Country Planning Act".
However, that is a small point.
I have the General Development Order with me. Article 18 of that order states under the heading Consultations before the grant of permission:
"Before granting permission for development which, in their opinion, falls within a category set out in the table below, a local planning authority shall consult the authority or person mentioned in relation to that category, except where—
(i) the local planning authority are the authority so mentioned"
or where that local planning authority is in any case required to consult elsewhere. The order sets out the list of consultees. Those are the statutory consultees referred to in the amendment. There are 23 consultees. I shall ease the mind of Members of the Committee by assuring them that I do not propose to refer to them all. However, I wish to draw attention to the sentence in the order which states that where there is development involving or including mining operations the water authority concerned has to be consulted.
The order further states that where there is development relating to the use of land as a cemetery the water authority concerned has to be consulted. In various other cases the water authority has to be consulted. Under the new arrangements in the Water Act, which we approved in a previous Session, there will have to be an amendment to the General Development Order. However, I hope that the principle will be retained. The order further states that in the case of,
"Development in an area of special scientific interest of which notification has been given or has effect as if given to the local planning authority by the Nature Conservancy Council"
under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Nature Conservancy Council must be consulted.

151
I could list in addition the bodies who are given an interest in what is being done by virtue of the provisions of other statutes. We should not overlook that matter when we are providing for the circumstances in which local planning authorities could or should be held under this Bill. I do not want to become too technical over this. I simply suggest most strongly that in paragraph 6 of the second schedule we ought to have the amendment that I propose, or something like it. I obviously would not divide the Committee on this, it is an exploratory amendment, but I hope to get a favourable response from my noble friend. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Norrie: I support this amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Renton. I believe it provides the means by which countryside concerns can be voiced in public. As I said earlier, I wish to ensure that the highest environmental safeguards are in place so that privately-funded roads do not compromise countryside protection. The ultimate safeguard is through the public inquiry procedure where there is open discussion over the benefits and costs of the proposal.
However, as currently proposed, none of the statutory advisory bodies concerned—and I refer to those listed in the General Development Order under the Town and Country Planning Act mentioned by my noble friend Lord Renton, such as the NCC, the NRA, the National Parks Authority—can be sure that an inquiry will be held even if the proposal seriously affects their interests or undermines national and local protection policies which they have a duty to uphold. This amendment seeks to ensure that the legitimate countryside protection interests are listened to and taken into account in relation to privately-funded roads. By supporting it, we should ensure that the voice of the statutory bodies responsible for the protection of our countryside will be heard.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Characteristically, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has done the Committee a service by referring to a somewhat loose formulation that appears in the Bill at the present time. It is right that obstacles should not be put in the way, or doubts should not be aroused, so far as statutory consultees in the other legislation are concerned, and I fully support the views that the noble Lord expressed. It is right that in situations of this kind the position should be absolutely clear. I do not believe, particularly having listened to the noble Lord, that it is clear under the Bill at the moment.
What would happen if the Minister were minded to accept the noble Lord's proposition—and I think he himself suggested that it might need some slight amendment, though that is not a matter of major concern for it is the principle we are talking about here —would be to open up the process to a considerable range of bodies which either have or might have a clear interest, such as the environmental conservation organisations which I think have an entitlement here. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my noble friend in moving the amendment. I had assumed that he was going to refer to Article 18 of the General Development Order, and I fortunately armed myself with a copy of it. Schedule 2 to this Bill of course deals only with toll orders. Whereas I can quite see that the bodies which my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Norrie mentioned might well be interested in the development itself, I do not see why any of those bodies should have any special interest and therefore a right to require a public inquiry into a toll order.
Listening to my noble friend's amendment I understood that it was my noble friend's intention to extend to certain public bodies other than local authorities the right to require a public inquiry to be held into the scheme authorising the toll road rather than the toll order itself. The proper way of doing that would be to make an amendment to Schedule 1 to the Highways Act 1980, but, if my noble friend had proposed that, I think I should have been able to resist it on the grounds that it was unnecessary.
In practice, public inquiries are always held into trunk road schemes of any size at all. An objection by a local authority, if only to details of a route, is very often received, and any other objections must be considered by the Secretary of State, and he can only fail to hold an inquiry if he is satisfied that it is unnecessary to do so. That is a stiff test, and it is only where objections are to minor details better dealt with in discussion, or are genuinely frivolous—which no objectors mentioned by my noble friend would be—that an inquiry is dispensed with. I hope I am able to satisfy my noble friend that the bodies that he mentions will of course have their perfectly proper opportunity to raise objections at the public inquiry.
Lord Renton: I am grateful for that answer, but I think my noble friend may have overlooked the fact that, if we are going to have a lot of traffic held up for collection of tolls, that may have environmental effects. For example, obviously more land would be needed for purchase locally, and it may be on the outskirts of what has been a forest. The taking of that extra land, the felling of more trees, would have an environmental effect simply because there was a toll order.
Also, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in discussion of an earlier amendment, it has been found in the United States that delaying the passage of cars at toll gates in order that their payments can be checked increases the amount of fumes and so on where there are—and of course on the big toll roads there can be a lot of cars—which in itself can have an environmental effect. It may affect the wildlife, for example.
Although I appreciate what my noble friend has said and I am grateful to him for acknowledging that public inquiries are necessary in the way that he mentioned in saying that it would be an amendment to the Highways Act that should be made to achieve our purpose—we shall have to consider that anyway between now and Report stage—I would ask him to bear in mind that the making of toll orders has a direct

153
environmental effect as well. We had that in mind in moving the amendment. Of course we shall need to consider this further, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No.20:
Page 86, leave out lines 10 to 18.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, standing in my name. This amendment deletes paragraph 8 of Schedule 2. There is no need for a further provision to make regulations on the procedure for toll road orders. All the provisions one could expect to find are either in Schedule 2 already or could be made in procedural rules for inquiries under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Toll orders]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 14, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 26 and insert ("Part IIA and paragraphs 15 and 18 of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 shall apply").
The noble Earl said: This amendment states precisely which parts of Schedule 1 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 will apply to the making or confirmation of a toll order. I beg to move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I wonder if my noble friend can shed some light on one thing that puzzles me? It arises from the Roads (Scotland) Act, in whose consideration I remember taking part, because much of the content of that legislation followed from a report on local government that was carried out in Scotland. This is a small point, but I am slightly puzzled by the reference to Part IIA. I have been to the Library to refresh my memory about this matter. There are various parts of the Act. There are Parts I to XIII—my noble friend has said that this part of the Bill refers to the schedule—and there are Parts I to IV of Schedule 1; but in the statute in the Library there is no Part IIA.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: There is very little of Schedule 1 to the 1984 Act that we want to attract. All we are trying to do by the amendment is to make the matter clearer, but if my noble friend requires further information perhaps it will be in order for me to write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 14, line 38, at end insert:
("() Where a roads authority enter into a contract with a person for the design or construction of a road which both parties intend will be subject to a toll order, the contract shall make provision for the compensation of that person for such expenses as may be agreed in accordance with the contract in the event of—

(a) the roads authority deciding not to proceed with the special road scheme, or

(b) the Secretary of State failing to make or confirm either the toll order or the scheme.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment reproduces for Scotland the effect achieved for England and Wales by Clause 1(4). I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am glad that these amendments have been put down because they make the Bill more understandable, but there are still problems about the responsibility For design and construction. I remember that half-way through the work on an important Scottish road the design was discovered to be faulty. Will the Minister explain what would happen in such a case? Would it be the decision of the roads authority not to continue, because to redesign would be too expensive, or would the contractor be the person who changed the design?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: Perhaps I should try to explain a little more fully. The amendment deals with the issue or compensation where a roads authority enters into a contract with a developer who undertakes to design and construct a road in return for an assignation of the authority's power to charge and collect tolls.
If the roads authority decides not to proceed with the scheme or if the Secretary of State fails to make or confirm the toll order or the scheme the authority shall compensate the developer in respect of the costs incurred by him as may be agreed. This has always been the Government's intention, as was stated in their response to consultation on New Roads by New Means. The amendment will bring the provision into line with the provision for England and Wales in Clause 1(4).
While it would have been possible simply to make provision for this in any agreement between the roads authority and the developer, the amendment will ensure that the agreement makes such provision in every case. The responsibility for the design would lie with the developer and he would have to bear any financial penalty for an unworkable or inappropriate design. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Assignation of rights under a toll order]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 15, line 2, leave out from ("person") to ("rights") in line 4 and insert ("for such period and subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, their").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 15, line 16, leave out from ("of') to end of line 17 and insert:

("(a) charging for the occupation of the road,

(b) charging for any services in relation to the road other than services which they themselves have supplied, or

(c) any contribution made by a third party towards the cost of maintenance or improvement of the road,

except to the extent that they themselves have incurred expense in such cases.").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment which makes clear that any income received from charges for occupation or for services in relation to the road, and any contribution made by a third party, shall be assigned to a concessionaire. This latter provision could refer, for example, to compensation for long-term damage caused by excavation carried out by undertakers, a scheme for which is provided by Clause 125, in Part IV. The amendment also restricts the requirement to assign the income to exempt cases where the special road authority has provided the service or has itself incurred costs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 15, line 18, leave out ("roads") and insert ("road").
The noble Earl said: This amendment corrects a minor terminological error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 15, line 20, at end insert ("in such cases as the authority has discretion as to the amount to be charged").
The noble Earl said: Clause 25(6) as drafted would require the special road authority in all cases to consult the concessionaire before making a charge as mentioned in subsection (5). This amendment provides that the special road authority need not consult the concessionaire in cases where the charge is prescribed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [The toll period]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This appears to be a very small amendment but it is nevertheless important because Clause 7 relates to the toll period. The amendment seeks to make the provision of a termination point for the toll period a mandatory feature of the toll order.
As currently drafted, this clause allows an open-ended power for tolls to be charged on a road. This power extends well after any costs and profit margins have been recovered from the road, and indeed well after the road has reverted to the ownership of the local highway authority. It surely cannot be the Government's intention to allow this to happen; nor is it a good sign of policy that a measure such as tolling a road can be undertaken without any clear understanding as to the purpose of introducing the toll.
The sort of purpose that is legitimate covers a fairly wide range. For example, it could cover the cost of construction and maintenance of the road, metering flows on to other parts of the road system and general traffic management. The parties entering into the concession agreement should have a clear idea of the
156
purpose. They should therefore be able to define a point at which the tolls may be removed. At present the Bill is permissive in this respect, though it gives a very wide range of possible ways of defining a point at which the tolls should end.
It is also possible to vary a toll order if, in the course of events, the original deadline becomes unrealistic. These measures should therefore become mandatory. That is the purpose of the amendment and I hope that the Minister will appreciate that changing "may" to "shall" is important because it will set the period at which the tolls should end, which should be mandatory. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Again, this amendment is unnecessary and I shall seek to convince the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, of that. Subsection (1) makes it quite clear that a toll order must be finite, with its termination date either laid down in or determinable under the order. Subsection (2) allows an order to contain a formula relating the termination date to factors of which a financial objective and a number of vehicles are two possibilities. "May" has been thought by the draftsmen to be more suitable than "shall", when a wide range of alternatives is offered. It is totally subordinate to "shall" in subsection (1). I see no merit in changing the drafting here.
It is an important principle that all toll road orders and all concession agreements should have an end. We are not prepared to grant tolling rights in perpetuity, but the length of the period and the means by which a right is calculated will vary. Often it will simply be a number of years. However, in some cases it may be appropriate to use other measures, such as the date on which a certain amount of revenue has been accumulated or a specified number of vehicles have used the road. The Dartford and Severn agreements both use those formulae, designed in these monopoly cases to allow an opportunity for a reasonable return on capital but not excessive profits. It is in such monopoly cases that a formula is most likely to be appropriate. I hope that explanation will allow the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: What the Minister said appears reasonable but bears no relation to subsection (1). That states:
"A toll order shall provide for tolls to be chargeable for a period (the 'toll period') specified in or determined in accordance with the order".
Subsection (2) states:
"The order may provide for the toll period to end"
and gives one, two or three alternatives. There is no reason whatever why "shall" should not be substituted since it still leaves the alternatives "or … or … or". We must have a mandatory toll period. That is all that is sought by this amendment.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said. However, he may find that the substitution of "shall" or "may" has to be agreed upon.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Let me repeat what I said. The point is that subsection (2) is subordinate to subsection (1), which definitely states that the toll period shall be finite.
Lord Underhill: As I said, I shall carefully read what has been said. I am not totally convinced by the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 26 [The toll period]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 15, line 34, leave out ("roads") and insert ("special road").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Amount of tolls chargeable by concessionaire]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 14, leave out from ("charged") to end of line 16.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 30, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 31.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Amendment No. 31 pre-empts Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. No doubt the noble Lord is aware of that.
Lord Tordoff: I am indeed aware of it. We deliberately tabled the amendments in this way because we hope to succeed in the first two amendments, failing which we shall deal with the matter in a different way with the next series of amendments.
The idea behind Amendment No. 30 is to set a maximum for all toll roads. I do not for one minute expect that such a measure will be viewed favourably by the Government. The amendment takes us into two areas that we have discussed before, one of them today, in that it ties in with the European view that tolls should have some relationship to the total cost.
Also, and to my mind slightly more important, is the fact that it takes us back to the question of near-monopoly situations, to which I referred during the Second Reading of the Bill. The provisions of Clause 8 are very restrictive in that they refer only to major crossings which are in fact major estuarial crossings. One understands why that has been done. If no maximum is set, a monopoly situation could occur whereby the concessionaire for an estuarial crossing could rip off the public because there is no alternative route by which the public can travel. I shall come back to the question of definition when we deal with Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, if we do not succeed with Amendment No. 31. However, that is not the only situation in which a monopoly or near-monopoly situation could occur.
One can envisage the possibility of a demand unfulfilled by the present road network in a fairly remote part of the country where there is no possibility of a sensible alternative. One thinks of parts of Scotland and parts of the South West. It may be that
158
we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, in tabling this amendment, I wanted to explore this area. I am not satisfied that the Government, in restricting the provision to major estuarial crossings—they do not in fact say estuarial crossings and use the definition "water more than 100 metres wide", but I think that it largely refers to estuaries—have covered the only occasion on which a monopoly or near-monopoly could be created. For cases in which there could be such a possibility, it is certainly my belief that a maximum toll should be imposed. With that in mind, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: These two amendments have been tabled with the same purpose in mind. The effect of these two changes would be to make all tolls subject to a maximum, regardless of the circumstances in which they were charged. Clause 8 was intended to protect consumers from excessive tolls in monopoly situations such as estuarial crossings. That was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
We believe that that is justified since road users would have no redress against excessive tolls by travelling on an alternative route. But there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost by extending regulation to all tolls. On roads other than the crossings regulated under Clause 8, the competitive pressures of alternative routes will adequately protect the road user. The aim of this initiative is to bring market forces to bear on roads provision. Furthermore these amendments will unnecessarily restrict the operation of privately financed toll roads and will discourage potential promoters, who will rightly wish to be assured of a return on their investment. Price control has been shown to be harmful, and removed in other sectors; we do not propose to introduce it here.
As in other sectors, the best way to protect the consumer is to ensure that the market works properly. That is why Clause 10 extends to toll roads the operation of the laws relating to fair trading, anti-competitive practices and restrictive agreements. Any apparent abuse of market power is open to examination by the Office of Fair Trading and may be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, whose powers, as the Committee may be aware, are far-reaching.
I am afraid therefore that I cannot agree with the principle of the noble Lord's amendments and I must ask the Committee to reject them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should like to probe the Minister's intentions a little further. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, touched on certain points which the Minister did not address. In any event, the Minister's argument may be flawed concerning the principle. Be that as it may, let us deal with the practicalities. We shall join issue on that.
What would be the situation if substantial roadworks were being carried out? Would that be met by the situation dealt with in the final passage of subsection (4)? A monopoly situation could arise with reasonable suddenness in a variety of circumstances.

159
One is the situation that I postulated in which one has major roadworks. Or there may be some substantial accident that occurs which prohibits the use of another alternative road, thus making the toll road the only possible route that can be taken. A variety of possibilities could arise with some degree of suddenness. How will the Minister respond? It will presumably take considerable time to impose different terms. It is a procedural matter that I should like the Minister to explain.
7 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure whether the noble Lord was referring to road works on the toll road or the alternative road. I assume that he meant the alternative road.
The operator of the toll road will not be allowed to take sudden advantage by putting up his prices when he realises that he is on to a good thing because the other road is temporarily restricted. That would be a subject for the Office of Fair Trading. I believe that that issue will be amply covered.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, one cannot go to the Office of Fair Trading to deal with a variety of possibilities which have disabled the alternative route, converting the toll road into a monopoly position. One has to be practical.
Lord Tordoff: Will the Minister address himself to what I call a near-monopoly situation? I understand his philosophical position. I am not responsible for it. I understand that logically he does not wish to see maximum tolls placed on such roads. We may have to return to that at a later stage to empower the Secretary of State in certain circumstances other than those on the face of the Bill to impose maximum tolls when he thinks fit. As the Bill stands he is unable to place a maximum toll on any road other than the major crossings as defined in the clause.
Does the Minister accept that there may be other circumstances outside the narrow confines of the clause when it would be proper to define a monopoly or near-monopoly situation and the application of maximum tolls?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure that I can go much further than I have already done. Of course difficult situations may arise that one cannot foresee. That is why we have made provision for the estuarial crossings in Clause 8. We have made provision for the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission writs to run in such matters.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that regulations under Clause 13 will require proceedings to be followed before toll charges can be changed. On the road works point, that would prevent the concessionaire from raising the charges suddenly. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, obviously I cannot foresee every situation which may arise. However, other than on estuarial crossings, we are talking about an alternative road other than one which already exists. At present a road exists although it may not be as good as the toll road is proposed to be.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord for his response about the possibility of regulations dealing with road works. However, sudden eventualities could arise. There could be subsidence or flooding on the alternative road. It may be some event which lasts a relatively short period—a day or so. It provides a monopoly position for the privately financed road. What is to stop the operator taking advantage of that emergency?
I do not understand how the Minister proposes to deal with the situation by going to the Office of Fair Trading? There simply would not be time. Would the position be dealt with by regulations? Perhaps it would. We should like to know the answer from the Minister before we return at Report stage.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend will stand firm on the amendment. If it were accepted it would make the operating of a toll road very much less attractive to the operator by introducing a considerable element of uncertainty with regard to the charges that he was able to impose. The examples that have been quoted seem to relate to wholly temporary situations. It does not seem likely that when the alternative road was flooded the operator would have the time to put a new system of charges into operation on the toll road. There does not seem any real risk.
However, the firm point of great importance is that one will diminish the attractiveness of building a toll road if one accepts that there may be a general facility for imposing a limit on the charges. It is a very important amendment. It is important that it should be resisted.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I agree very much with my noble friend. That is the point that I have been trying to get across. Of course we wish to see such roads built. The concessionaire will wish to make a profit out of them. That is why he will build the road. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, except in the case of estuarial crossings, competition will be available from existing roads. The concessionaire will not wish to overcharge and frighten away customers. He will wish to attract them. He will therefore have to charge a reasonable toll.
I said to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—perhaps he did not take my point—that regulations under Clause 13 require a procedure to be followed before toll charges can be changed. That prevents sudden changes in the case of some unforeseen circumstance on the alternative road.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to understand that I am not talking about temporary circumstances but situations where there is either no proper alternative or an unacceptable or much more difficult alternative route. There is no provision for that situation in the Bill.
Under the Bill the Secretary of State is unable to set maximum tolls on anything other than estuarial crossings. There is no provision in the Bill for a similar or near-monopoly situation. I accept that my amendment does not cover that specific case. I must consider it before the next stage. However, I am sorry

161
that the Minister has been unable to take the matter on board and to suggest that the department is willing to consider some way of dealing with what I consider a genuine problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 5, line 24, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").
The noble Lord said: Clause 8(3) sets out the definition of a major crossing and refers to the distances involved. The Bill defines a major crossing as 100 metres wide, where there is no other route within five miles of the crossing in question. Subsection (3) (b) states:
"the distance between two crossings shall be taken to be the shortest distance between the centre lines of the two crossings".
The distance between the centres of the two bridges is irrelevant to the inconvenience or otherwise of the driver of a vehicle. He wants to know whether there is an alternative crossing within a reasonably driveable distance. If the crossings are five miles apart but, due to the topography, he must drive 30 miles to reach the other end of the bridge, we are faced with a monopoly situation. Presumably the Government will wish to avoid that.
I tabled the two amendments in order to define the distance by road. I propose changing the word "five" to "ten" in line 24 and inserting the words "measured as the distance to be travelled by means of motor vehicle to reach it from the approach to the relevant end of that crossing". I accept that perhaps subsection (3) (b) should also be deleted for the sake of tidiness, but that can be dealt with at a later stage.
I hope that the Government will understand that their narrow definition of what constitutes an alternative means of crossing needs to be widened in such a way that it is relevant to the driver and not to someone sailing a boat down the river. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for trying to get to grips with the difficult question of how to define a monopoly where there are two crossings of navigable waters which may or may not be alternatives to each other. I must admit that, when all is said and done, the definition we arrive at will be somewhat arbitrary. However, we should nevertheless aim to come up with one which is simple but effective. Unfortunately, I believe that the ingenious suggestion put forward in this amendment is neither of these. As regards simplicity, I would ask: when would the Secretary of State's surveyor, in his motor vehicle, be sure that he has actually reached the alternative crossing and should turn off his milometer? Nor is the point on the approach road from where he started specified. An approach road can be as long or as short as a piece of string. I fear that if we accepted this amendment there would be endless arguments over such questions at public inquiries, which would detract from the central issues.
As regards effectiveness, this definition could well change over time if, for example, the layout of the
162
roads between two crossings changed a few years after the new crossing had been built. And who would decide from the outset which route between the two ends of the crossings would form the basis for measurement?
We already have a firm basis for measuring the distance between two crossings in Clause 8(3)(b). I do not pretend that it is the last word and we have included in Clause 8(2) the opportunity to change it. But the present definition is a clear and unequivocal foundation. I submit that it is a surer way of moving forward on this question and therefore I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: The special pleading in relation to the poor surveyor being unable to ascertain the distance by road between two points is stretching the argument a bit far. It is probably easier to try to do so by road than through space between the centre lines of the two bridges. Presumably with the use of a decent Ordnance Survey map one can get very close.
I am not satisfied with the answer because it is unrealistic in relation to the way people use roads. They do not use them by taking straight lines between two points. Their alternatives involve going by road. I hope that the Minister will look again at the matter. Perhaps I have phrased the amendment badly, not having the advantage of parliamentary draftsmen. As I have sought to show, the provision is so restrictive that I believe the Government should take a little more notice of the real problems that motorists may face. However, at this time of night I shall not press the matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 9 [Amount of tolls chargeable by highway authority]:
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Amount of tolls chargeable]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 15, line 37, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").
The noble Earl said: I speak also to Amendment No. 37. These are technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 16, line 2, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 16, line 6, leave out from ("but") to end of line 8 and insert ("no such assignation is made, they shall not charge any tolls in respect of that road unless the Secretary of State—

(a) consents to such charging, and

(b) specifies maximum tolls which may be charged by the authority.").

The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting improvement which makes the provision more rigorous in its logic. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Toll order in respect of major crossings]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 16, line 34, leave out ("25") and insert ("25(1)").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor technical amendment. Elsewhere in the Bill assignations are described as being granted under Clause 25(1). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Application of enactments relating to monopolies, &c.]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 17, line 13, leave out from ("reference)") to end of line 17.
The noble Earl said: The amendment deletes paragraph (b) of Clause 29(2). The paragraph is not necessary for Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland is among those Ministers listed in Section 51(3) of the Fair Trading Act 1973. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Transfer or termination of assignation]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 18, line 4, at end insert ("and references in this Part (including this section) to an assignation granted under section 25(1) include references to a fresh assignation granted under paragraph (a) above.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment provides that the provisions of this part in connection with assignations apply to the first assignation and also to any subsequent assignation which is granted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 18, line 5, leave out ("Such an assignation") and insert ("An assignation granted under section 25(1)").
The noble Earl said: This amendment follows on from the amendment to Clause 31(2) and is needed to make it clear that the assignation referred to is the first assignation and any subsequent assignation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Further provisions as to charging of tolls]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 43:
164
Page 7, line 9, after ("order") insert ("shall contain provision exempting from liability for tolls any vehicle lawfully displaying a badge issued to a disabled person under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and").
The noble Lord said: If the Committee accepts this amendment, it would exempt from tolls vehicles lawfully displaying the orange disabled badge. Among the environmental reasons for privately-financed roads was the encouragement to the motorist to use public transport. The Committee will know that in many instances severely physically disabled people are unable to use public transport. Virtually the only public transport specifically designed for them is the long distance train. For most of them, the car is their only means of transport and certainly the only practical means of transport. For them to have to pay a toll, would, in effect, be a tax on their disability.
At present, orange badge holders are already exempt from paying tolls on the Severn Bridge, the Erskine Bridge, the Forth Bridge, the Dartford Tunnel and I understand many other lengths of toll roads in the country. I should add that disabled people generally have lower incomes and higher costs of living than able-bodied people. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I do so on the grounds that it is consistent with current practice in relation to the examples which he cited for disabled people displaying orange badges to be excused from tolls in the four instances to which he referred.
Therefore, it would be consistent with that and it would be extremely inconsistent if another practice were to be applied in relation to the new policy to be deployed by the Government in encouraging private finance into those road systems.
The second reason, as the noble Lord said, is that there seems to be strong evidence that disabled people are by and large—and there are exceptions to this—within the lower income group. That is not something which I cite from out of my own head: Government surveys have disclosed that information. We know that the level of mobility allowance has not kept up with the cost of motoring. That is another very strong reason for undertaking the policy advocated by the noble Lord.
I hope that the Government will not resist the amendment. If they are not in a position to accept it today, I hope that the Minister will leave the door ajar so that we can come back to this matter on Report, and I hope that the Government response either today or then will be very positive.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I too support this amendment. For one moment I should like to go back in history and ask the Government a question. We have heard that disabled people who hold orange badges are exempt from payment on toll bridges such as the Forth and Severn Bridges and others. What was the reason for that? Why was that exemption made and by whom? There must have been a very good reason and perhaps that reason stands for the future toll roads.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I recognise the sincerity and feeling with which this amendment was moved. I also recognise that a similar provision is included in the Severn Bridges Bill, which is now before another place. I believe that the amendment is founded in part upon a misconception. The purpose of the orange badge scheme is basically to help people with permanent and severe disability problems to park so that they can go about their daily lives more easily. The purpose of tolling privately financed infrastructure is not to deter road users, and encourage them to switch to another mode, but to remunerate the concessionaire, who will have financed and built the road, and who will shoulder the cost of operating and maintaining it—a matter which Members of the Committee opposite were particularly keen on when we discussed early amendments. I do not see why concessionaires should be statutorily barred from recouping some of their investment from particular classes of road users, just because they have a disability. The Committee and my noble friend will be aware that there are about 1·25 million orange badge holders so a statutory exemption would have a significant effect on the viability of a project, and on the general level of tolls to be charged.
Members of the Committee will know that the exemption in the Severn Bridges Bill is unusual if not unique. The Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act exempts from tolls those vehicles which are exempt from vehicle excise duty, and there is a similar practice elsewhere; for example, in the Tyne tunnels. I do not have with me the details of the other crossings which my noble friend mentioned. Also, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I do not know why exemptions were made as regards the Severn Bridge in the first place.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps the Minister will find out from the archives and let me know because I am interested. It may be that society was rather more caring in those days than it is now.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not sure I can comment on the latter remark. I was about to say that I would try to find out and write to the noble Baroness. I do not wish to become involved in a debate about the resources made available for the disabled at this juncture.
There may be circumstances in which such an exemption would be appropriate, and there may be others where a reduced toll, short of exemption, would be appropriate. Clause 12(1) in the Bill expressly envisages a toll order containing provisions exempting classes of traffic, which could be the emergency services, or could be vehicles used by disabled people. The clause also makes it clear that even when exemptions are not required by a toll order the concessionaire may grant such exemptions as he thinks fit. This would enable him to let orange badge holders use the road free, or, perhaps more likely, at a reduced toll, which, as with British Rail's concessionary fares, might gain business as well as good will.
I am convinced however that it would not be right to require as a matter of law exemptions to be granted
166
to orange badge holders, and I must therefore ask the Committee to reject this amendment, eloquently moved though it was.
However, without commitment, I am prepared to consider whether it may be possible to have a statutory exemption on the lines or the Dartford exemption where tolls are required and where there is not a convenient alternative for the road user. I appreciate that I have not gone so fits as my noble friend would like, but I hope that he will accept that assurance which I have been able to give and will withdraw the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I simply do not understand why the Minister cannot go further. He referred to the viability of the project being endangered. Is that a serious argument? What is the incidence of disabled orange badge holders who are likely to use these tolls? It must be very small indeed. There is no question of endangering the viability of a project like this. Indeed, one might think that concessionaires will think it appropriate to make such exemptions.
Leaving that aside—it is not something on which we can rely—surely the case that has been made out is consistent with the case of the Erskine Bridge and the Forth Bridge. I am not sure what the position is vis-é-vis the Severn Bridge but I thought that orange badge holders were currently exempt. There seems to be some kind of mystery surrounding the Dartford Tunnel, and I do not follow that. The fact is that exemption is not unusual.
The noble Baroness asked a perfectly reasonable question to which the Committee will require an answer—if not tonight, later—as to how it came about that exemptions were granted in relation to a number of such instances. Whatever may be the history, interesting though I am sure it is, in terms of practicability a strong case has been made out for saying that there should be exemption. Why bother with partial exemption? We are not discussing huge sums of money. We are speaking of something to which the Government could say they are committed, whether in the form of regulation or writing it into the Bill. That is what we shall demand from the Government at a later stage of the Bill. We shall certainly reflect on what the Minister said and no doubt he will also wish to come back and give us answers to questions that he cannot reasonably provide tonight.
Another matter of concern relates to the unlawful display of the orange badge. I can see no good reason why that should not be made a criminal offence. That would help the Minister rather than impede him in what he seeks to do and would make very clear that only legitimate orange badge holders should display them. Others doing so would be flouting the criminal law. That is precisely what should happen. Penalties should be imposed for any such unlawful display.
I understand that my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Jack Ashley, raised this question with the previous Secretary of State. The reply that he received was that in principle the Government accepted the

167
proposition but were disinclined to use this specific legislation to advance the idea. I should have thought that this was a perfectly good piece of legislation and the right vehicle to use. Ministers often use the argument that a particular piece of legislation is the wrong vehicle. Anyone who has been a Minister has experience of using the wrong vehicle argument. I believe one could not have a more appropriate piece of legislation in which to introduce that sanction. I hope that the Government will be prepared to do that.
If in principle the Government are prepared to go along that route but are not prepared to use this Bill, there are other Bills coming along in the course of the Session. There are five transport Bills in all. Perhaps the Minister could say what would be the appropriate Bill. I hope he will be somewhat more forthcoming than he has been hitherto, both in relation to the wider point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and on the point regarding criminal sanctions to which I alluded a moment ago.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister answers perhaps I may say that I took some legislation through this Chamber. I am fairly sure that it is a criminal offence to abuse the orange badge, certainly when parking. Severely disabled people are disappointed because the policing of the offence is practically non-existent. The Minister will find that very few fines have been imposed. That causes great disappointment. Able-bodied people have abused and still abuse the system.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Baroness for the intervention. However, I believe that legislation is confined to parking and does not have the broader implications to which I referred.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We are straying somewhat from the contents of the Bill. However much the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, may think so, I do not consider this to be a suitable opportunity to introduce overall criminalisation of misuse of orange badges. The Bill refers to new roads, and to street works in the second part. It certainly could not be used to operate on any road, which presumably would be the effect of such legislation.
We debated this subject about 18 months ago. I will need to refresh my memory on that. We recognise that there is a problem and there are already penalties, as the noble Baroness said, for unlawful display of orange badges. That is something we take seriously. However, it is not something we could incorporate into the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he will be kind enough to write not only to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, but also to the other sponsors of the amendment with an answer to the question regarding the origin of the relief on tolls for orange badge holders. When considering this matter we should also bear in mind that a civilised society can only be called a civilised society when it looks after its weakest members. In that respect, relieving disabled
168
people of the need to pay tolls when they use what is often their only means of transport would be a case in point. The matter should be looked at again.
With regard to the illegal use of an orange badge, that may well be covered in legislation that the noble Baroness piloted through the Chamber some time ago. However, it would not be impractical to make it a criminal offence to obtain a reduction in a toll by the improper use of an orange badge. That provision could be incorporated into the Bill. The matter needs to be considered further.
I shall read what has been said in the debate this evening. I shall consider it with my advisers and I may well come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Collection of tolls]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Facilities for collection of tolls]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 39, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Underhill and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the exemption of toll collection facilities from the need for planning permission.
Clause 15(2) exempts the construction of toll collection facilities from the need for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. We feel that that is undesirable. The effect of the amendment is simply to delete the subsection in question to ensure that planning permission would be required in regard to facilities of this kind.
We believe that toll collection facilities could easily be located in environmentally sensitive areas. Therefore one is concerned to discover what kind of justification there can be for exempting them from planning control. The Minister may say that his concern is to boost the commercial attractiveness of the provision for privately funded roads. He said that in the last debate, somewhat incongruously I should have thought.
I shall try to anticipate one or two of the other arguments and deal with them although the Minister may have others up his sleeve. He may argue that planning permission is unnecessary because the design and location of toll collection facilities would be examined at any public inquiry held in relation to the road proposal as a whole. I bet that the Minister uses that argument. He might well say that Clause 15(1) provides for the consent of the highway authority to

169
be given for the setting up of any such facilities. I bet that he uses that argument also. If he does, I suggest that the arguments are not sustainable.
The reason is that technological advances will be made. It is almost certain that the kinds of facilities that are most appropriate for efficient and effective toll collection will alter during the life of the toll order and concession agreement. It is as important that any new facilities are subject to the same degree of scrutiny as the initial proposals.
The highway authority is unlikely to be the planning authority particularly if it is likely that the highway authority for the majority of the privately funded roads is the Secretary of State for Transport. The provision in relation to consent by the highway authority is aimed at ensuring that any road safety implications of the location of facilities are addressed rather than aesthetic or environmental ones. It is important that we should incorporate the latter provision in the Bill.
The Automobile Association is also concerned about this matter. In a briefing to Members of the Committee it has said that it considers it to be anomalous to exempt a private developer from planning control given the general principle that private parties must seek planning permission. Therefore, not only does the AA support the proposition that I have advanced; so does the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Association of Municipal Authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and every word that he said. I cannot understand why this subsection is in the Bill. Without the need for planning consent we could have in areas of outstanding natural beauty, or areas close to them, the most hideous and inappropriate structures put up for the purpose of collecting tolls. The noble Lord said that it may be all right at the very beginning, but methods of collecting tolls may well change. Concessions will be for 50 years or possibly more. We must have proper planning controls.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have listened carefully to the arguments raised on this amendment. The reasoning behind the subsection is by no means as sinister as the noble Lord makes out. It is simply that, having gone through a complicated and exhaustive procedure to authorise a road scheme and the power to toll, it seems superfluous to expect the concessionaire to engage in a quite separate procedure to obtain planning permission for toll booths and their essential facilities such as rest rooms for toll collectors.
Traffic signs are exempted from planning permission under the general development order and toll booths are no less an essential part of the road on which they are placed. However, I am aware of the importance of the planning process. I understand also the concern about the breadth of the expression:
"facilities for the collection of tolls".
It may be that we have not yet got the right balance. I shall look into the matter further. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said and, with my
170
right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I shall table an appropriate amendment at Report stage if we come up with a better solution. But obviously I cannot make any commitment. I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tordoff: I hope that the Minister does what he says he will do. This is not a question similar to road signs. Toll booths can be very extensive structures. On the French motorways there are all kinds of overhead gantries and other structures. Planning consent will simply make sure that the booths are put in the most acceptable place. Some flexibility is possible. It is very important that they are not allowed to obtrude on a particularly beautiful piece of countryside even if a road has just been put through it. A different dimension is involved. Whereas roads, on the whole, are two dimensional, toll booths will be three dimensional. I hope the Minister can find some way of coming back to the matter at Report stage; otherwise I look forward to the issue being raised again from this side of the Chamber.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord for his response. I seem to be making a little more progress as the night draws on. However, I wish to assure him right away that that is no encouragement for prolonging the debates. I hope that we shall finish in about 20 minutes. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. He has committed himself to looking at the observations we have made tonight. I do not think we can reasonably ask him to go any further now. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Clause 39 [Classification of traffic for purposes of special roads]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 21, line 28, after ("where"") insert ("to the end").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. It is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 21, line 38, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. The provision is being removed from this clause but it will be provided in an amendment to Part III of Schedule 8 which will involve amending the statutory instrument section of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. However, it is essential to the later amendment that this one is made here. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Certain special roads not necessarily trunk roads]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 10, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert:
("(2) In the case of a special road provided by the Minister, subsection (1) above has effect subject to any provision of the order directing that the Minister shall continue to be the highway authority for the road.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment also corrects a small drafting error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 41 [The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the interpretation of Part II]]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 22, line 18, at end insert:
(" "toll period" has the meaning given in section 26(1).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. It is a minor drafting point. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Import and Export Control Bill
7.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill repeals Section 9(3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. That subsection provides that the Act will expire on,
"such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be the date that the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of this Act came to an end".
By repealing this subsection, the 1939 Act is made permanent.
The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 is the last major piece of the emergency legislation introduced at the beginning of the second world war to remain in use. It gives powers to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make orders regulating or prohibiting the import or export of goods to or from the United Kingdom and enabling licences to import or export goods to be granted. It also provides for the forfeiture of goods imported or exported contrary to an order.
172
The power to control imports and exports is essential to implement many important government policies. The export control powers have been used for many years to restrict trade for strategic reasons. In the light of recent developments we may be able to envisage a time when the use of these powers is no longer necessary, but for the present the continuing need is only too obvious. Other examples of the use of the powers are to implement international treaty obligations such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and to help prevent countries from developing chemical and biological weapons; to prevent certain exports which could prejudice national security; and to prevent the export of goods likely to be used for terrorist purposes or internal repression. The powers of the Act are also used to prevent exports of antiques and other items which are considered to be an important part of the national heritage and to implement the voluntary restraint agreement on steel exports.
The powers to control imports are just as important to support foreign policy objectives and to help safeguard public security—for example, by regulating the import of firearms—although they are used mainly to enforce internationally agreed trade protection measures. Controls which have become unnecessary can be removed easily. For example, in the light of developments in Eastern Europe, COCOM partners announced in July a major relaxation in controls which has been implemented under the powers of the 1939 Act. I hope that further relaxations in export controls will follow.
Experience has shown that the powers work efficiently and effectively without placing unnecessary burdens on business. They are well tried and tested. The 1939 Act gives us the powers to react quickly and flexibly in response to new situations as they arise. It is important to realise that this Bill is a technical measure. The exercise of powers under the Act is not affected. However, it is now unsatisfactory to control imports and exports under powers derived from an Act which will expire when an Order in Council is made declaring that the emergency that was the occasion of the Act's passing is at an end. We should therefore make the Act permanent now.
To sum up, in practice this Bill changes nothing. The powers conferred by the Act have been operating well for many years, and it is important that they should continue to do so in the future. This Bill, by making the 1939 Act permanent, ensures that they will. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hesketh.)
7.54 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill. We agree that it is a technical Bill and we have no difficulty with it. However, I should like to make one or two comments.
I understand that it is the last major piece of the emergency legislation introduced at the beginning of the second world war now remaining in use. There is

173
today no emergency of the nature envisaged in 1939 but there are other emergencies which His Majesty or Her Majesty, as may be, might declare in the context of the section which the Government seek to repeal. I understand that the powers of the Act have been used to prevent exports of all kinds of things other than strategic materials. For instance, articles of an artistic nature, antiques and so on come under the provisions of the Act. I wonder whether it would not be sensible to try to draft a Bill somewhat more up to date than the 1939 Act. I leave that point with the Minister.
It appears—I say no more than that—that the Government do not have the powers which we would wish them to have to control exports to Iraq. That has come to light against the background of the Gulf crisis. What other pieces of legislation remaining in the legislative cupboard need to be looked at and redrafted in an up-to-date form? It should not require a new crisis for us to take what I would regard as slightly spatchcock measures to improve our legislation.
Having said that, the Opposition support the Government in their intention to control exports in a proper manner. We support the Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1990
7.56 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships may know, under the terms of the Resolution of another place of 21st July 1987, parliamentary salaries will increase by 8.5 per cent. on 1st January 1991 in line with Civil Service rates for Grade 6s. Our intention is that Ministers and paid office holders both in this House and in the Commons will also receive an increase of 8.5 per cent. in their official salary from the same date.
The draft order which I laid before your Lordships' House on 13th November determines the revised salaries we propose for Ministers and paid office
174
holders. In a Written Answer given to the House on 13th November my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal set out in detail all the changes which we envisage. Ministers and paid office holders would receive cash increases varying from £1,359 to £3,974, depending on their office, in addition to the increase of £1,708 in the reduced parliamentary salary for Commons Ministers. The Lords Ministers' increases will range from £2,548 to £3,790. The total increase in ministerial and paid office holders' salaries would amount to just under £265,000, which is equivalent to 8.5 per cent. of the pay bill.
I believe that these proposals represent an equitable and realistic settlement which would be entirely consistent with this Government's policy towards pay restraint. For the past three years Ministers have received relatively modest settlements. This cannot be sustained for too many years without eroding differentials between Members of another place and Ministers. There is no question of catching up for previous low settlements. I commend this Motion to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome the order because it continues the understandings which I believe were reached after a period of some dissatisfaction when ministerial salaries and those of Members of Parliament were constantly the subject of public comment because they always seemed to be brought forward at the wrong time; and sometimes, it was said, for the wrong reasons.
The Government, with the approval of all parties, have devised a formula which takes the manner in which these matters are dealt with out of the public domain and away from such controversy. The Minister's opening remarks were very reasonable and well understood. As I said, we on this side of the House welcome the order.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, Members on these Benches have no special points to make on the matter. Therefore, we are happy to accept the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.

  PRISON POPULATION FORECASTS
  PRISON POPULATION FORECASTS
  PRISON POPULATION DECREASE
  PRISON POPULATION DECREASE
  BROADCASTING ACT 1990: SUPPLEMENTARY OWNERSHIP RULES
  BROADCASTING ACT 1990: SUPPLEMENTARY OWNERSHIP RULES
  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL: HUMAN RIGHTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL: HUMAN RIGHTS
  NHS TRUSTS
  NHS TRUSTS