Sitting of 6 December 1990

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

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
  Import and Export Control Act 1990.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 13 December 1990.

    HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 December 1990.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Inflation
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects inflation to fall below 5 per cent.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): The all-items RPI inflation is expected to fall to 5½ per cent. by the fourth quarter of 1991. The Government's firm financial framework will ensure that inflation continues on a downward path.
    Mr. Evans: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having been elevated to one of the highest offices in the land and I suppose that we must hope that his economic forecasts will prove more successful than those of his two predecessors, who generally got it wrong. More seriously, does the Chancellor agree that if he succeeds in reducing the rate of inflation, he will do so through a policy of punishing interest rates which will deepen the current recession and create further unemployment? Will he give my constituents an assurance that unemployment will not rise above 2 million next year?
    Mr. Lamont: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first part of that supplementary question. The answer to the second part is that there is no painless or easy way to reduce inflation, although that is an illusion peddled by the Labour party. The costs and pain of reducing inflation
    434
    now will be as nothing compared with the pain and costs that we had in reducing the inflation that we inherited in 1980–81.
    Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members join in congratulating him on his promotion to Chancellor of the Exchequer and we are absolutely certain that he will continue with the same economic policy as his predecessor? If public expenditure were increased to implement the various promises that Labour Members are putting forward, what effect does he think that that would have not only on the inflation rate but on the budget deficit?
    Mr. Lamont: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks and I assure him that economic policy continues to be the same. I also assure him that I shall take no risks either with inflation or with the exchange rate. Bearing down on inflation is, and will remain, the Government's top priority. My right hon. Friend is right to point to the extravagant plans for public expenditure put forward by the Labour party, which could have only two consequences—even higher interest rates and accelerating inflation.
    Mr. John Smith: May I add my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer? Will he now answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) about unemployment? If the recession continues, as it is clearly doing, causing a downturn in economic activity, the collapse of companies and a rise in unemployment, what action will the Government take to combat those deplorable results?
    Mr. Lamont: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his first remarks. There are many pleasures in holding my present office, one of which is having the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite me. We intend to make the reduction of inflation our top priority. We do not intend to boost output by adjusting fiscal policy. In the past that has been a counter-productive policy and has brought no benefits in terms of reducing inflation. The benefits to output will come when inflation is reduced. The experience of previous cycles has been that once we make marked progress in reducing inflation, output begins to recover.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our present predicament stems largely from the mistaken decision to relax monetary policy at the end of 1987? That is clear with the benefit of hindsight. Will my right hon. Friend confirm, however, that Labour Members were urging us to go still further and that what they advocate today shows that they have learnt nothing since then?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am confident that we shall make progress in lowering inflation as a result of the tough and difficult decisions taken by my predecessor. The success that we shall have owes nothing to any encouragement from Labour Members, who have done nothing but oppose every policy designed to lower inflation.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the balance of payment figures.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): In the latest three months, the current account deficit was £3·1 billion—roughly half the peak recorded in the third quarter of 1989. It is likely to continue to fall as domestic demand pressures ease further.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Treasury team think that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was, and is, correct in believing that the deficit is self-correcting and not a matter for Government action, or do they agree with the new Prime Minister that the deficit is a problem and, if so, what do they intend to do to reduce it further?
    Mr. Mellor: I do not think that there is any great divide between my two right hon. Friends. On the contrary, it has been a commonplace of Government policy for a long time, and continues to be, that the deficit must be reduced, which it is being. We are confident that we shall meet the targets that we set.
    Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his promotion and I trust that he will bring his undoubted enthusiasm to keeping Government expenditure under control. What effect do Britain's contributions to the EC, overseas aid and the cost of the Rhine Army have on the balance of payments, and what plans do the Government have to reduce that burden on the British taxpayer and reduce the balance of payments deficit?
    Mr. Mellor: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. The three policy issues that he identifies are ones to which the Government have commitments, which will be honoured.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that a large chunk of Britain's trade deficit is made up of imported textiles and clothing? Does he appreciate that there will be an explosion of anger from the men and women whose livelihoods depend on the British textile and clothing industry if today, in a desperate effort to salvage the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks, their jobs are traded off and British industry is sold down the river?
    Mr. Mellor: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. A balance has to be struck between the interests of industry and those of the consumer. I see no reason why the livelihoods of the people about whom the hon. Gentleman is quite properly concerned should be put at risk by the discussions. There are some encouraging signs that the level of imports is no greater now than 12 months ago and exports, particularly manufacturing exports, have been keeping up well, with an increase of about 7·5 per cent. this year. That suggests that there is no reason for doom and gloom in the textile and clothing industry or any other.
    Mr. Marlow: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to explain what is meant by the "balancing item." Apparently, the published balance of trade figures are nothing like so bad as they were set out to be because of this thing called the balancing item. What is the reality?
    Mr. Mellor: The balancing item is where the figures cannot be reconciled—[Interruption.] That is what they tell me. If I may be permitted to do so, I was about to display further erudition. The balancing item probably reflects the problems of monitoring capital inflows when, in today's world, capital inflows flow in and out without the regulations of yesterday. That is almost certainly the case, but the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will correct me if I am wrong.

    Departments (Expenditure)
    Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Departments are planned to have less money in real terms in 1993–94 than their planned expenditure for 1991–92
    Mr. Mellor: I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 1A.10 of the 1990 autumn statement.
    Mr. Steinberg: Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Government plan to spend less in real terms on education in 1983–84 than in the previous year? If so, was not it a hollow promise for the Prime Minister to claim that he was interested in education and attached priority to it? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that extra resources are put into the education budget, if only to save the face of the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Mellor: I think that the hon. Gentleman meant 1993–94——
    Mr. Steinberg indicated assent.
    Mr. Mellor: I say that just to show that I was listening.
    A substantial increase for education for next year was announced in the autumn statement. The final figures for the third year are always considered in the public expenditure survey negotiations immediately preceding the autumn statement of the November before April 1993, so we must see what the circumstances are then.
    One of the points that need to be borne in mind about education in recent times is the fall in the number of school age pupils. The key indicator is expenditure per pupil, which under this Government has increased by 50 per cent. in real terms for secondary school pupils, and that trend is set to continue.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the two Departments that have done well out of the autumn statement are the Department of Health and the Department of Education and Science, and that that shows the Government's commitment to helping people in the community who most need assistance when inflation is running at current levels? Is not that a sign of a caring Government?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is right. I have already made the point about education and I should like to add that the budget for health for next year was increased in the autumn statement by about £3 billion, which means an increase over two years of £6 billion. I am not sure what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and his colleagues will find to complain about in that.
    Mrs. Beckett: I, too, congratulate the new Chief Secretary on his appointment. We were also pleased to

    437
    learn that the new Chancellor told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that he thinks that the Government should look after manufacturing industry. How do the Government reconcile that with the fact that their spending plans show that over the planning period, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, the Government intend to cut spending in real terms not only on education but on the work of the Department of Trade and Industry, on research and development, and even on training to reduce the skill shortages that are feeding inflation? Or is it just that there is no relationship between what the Government say and what they do?
    Mr. Mellor: I think that the hon. Lady's problem is more fundamental. She seems to think that the only way to assist manufacturers is to spend Government money on them, when it is the framework in which manufacturing industry has to operate which is the key. It was the improvement in that framework which led to massive increases in productivity and manufacturing output in the 1980s, and the same improvement will ensure that manufacturing comes through the present difficult period and goes on to further success.
    The hon. Lady will be aware that it is no freak occurrence—although it did not occur at all under Labour Governments—that under this Government our share of world trade is increasing.
    Mr. John Marshall: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the massive increases proposed for transport, particularly for London Regional Transport. May I look forward to the day when that beneficence expands to include improving the Northern line?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He recognises that about £700 million has been made available for rail and underground improvements to benefit major parts of London's network. I will ensure that his views on the Northern line are passed on to London Regional Transport. It is a great myth that there is under-investment, as British Rail and London Underground will be spending about £750 million in the next three years on safety alone. That shows just how much investment is going into public transport.

    Supply Side Policies
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures were announced in the autumn statement to help improve the supply side of the United Kingdom economy.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): The Government's supply side policies are designed to improve the performance of the economy by removing barriers and creating incentives.
    Mr. Fraser: Given that unemployment is rising rapidly, that we continue to have a horrific deficit in trade in manufactured goods and that industrial investment is still only at the same level as it was in 1979, are not those measures wholly inadequate to enable us to produce from our own resources the things that people in this country need?
    Mr. Maples: That is absolutely wrong. It completely ignores the fact that during the 1980s the United Kingdom
    438
    was top of the league for productivity, top of the league for growth, top of the league for investment and created 2½ million more jobs, so we must have been doing something right.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the improvements in the supply side of the economy have been most satisfactory under the Government? Does he further agree that the low rates of direct taxation have contributed towards making sure that the labour market has settled down and fewer strikes have helped to free productivity and improve the supply side of the economy?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is quite right. Our supply side policies have been designed to improve competition, remove barriers and improve incentives. We have done that by cutting tax, deregulating the economy, improving competition and reforming the labour market. To me, and to many of my hon. Friends, it is laughable to suggest that there is such a thing as supply side socialism.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: As the latest figures show a serious financial deficit among large companies in Britain and it is therefore plain that those companies will reduce investment, will the Minister further consider an increase in capital allowances, possibly a short-term one, to encourage continued investment?
    Mr. Maples: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, many companies have substantial debts because they have been investing on an unprecedented scale in the past few years. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about depreciation and capital allowances. As he knows, we reformed corporation tax in 1984. There is now a generous system for depreciation and capital allowances and the accumulation of those 25 per cent. allowances over the past few years has meant that many companies are protected from a large amount of what would otherwise be corporation tax liability.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend confirm the Government's commitment to encouraging further savings so that investment in industry can expand in the 1990s in the same way as it expanded in the 1980s under the Government's policies?
    Mr. Maples: I can assure my hon. Friend of that. Both of the last two Budgets have contained measures designed to encourage savings. They have been very successful, and we hope that they will enable industry to continue to fund the kind of investment programmes that it has funded for the past few years when, as I have said, we saw record growth in business investment.

    Taxes and National Insurance
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross earnings a married couple with one earner on 75 per cent. of average earnings, with two children, paid in all taxes and national insurance, including local taxes and treating child benefit as negative income tax, in 1978–79 and 1989–90.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Approximately 31 per cent. and 33 per cent., respectively; over the same period, measured at 1990 prices, the same family has enjoyed an increase in real net income of nearly £43 per week.
    Dr. Moonie: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new job. We have crossed swords before in Select Committees and in various other places, and I am sure that we shall do so again. I am glad that she has confirmed the figures. Will she confirm that the net result of the Government's taxation policy over the past 11 years has been to reduce taxes for the rich and to increase them for the poor?
    Mrs. Shephard: What counts for families are real earnings. The total tax burden in all cases is now lower than it would have been if Labour's tax regime had simply been indexed for inflation. That same family which has enjoyed a rise of £43 per week under this Government would have had a measly £3·20 under Labour.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is not one of the most pernicious barriers—the trade barrier—equally damaging to the rich and to the poor? Does my hon. Friend agree that even if we get a 30 per cent. cut in food subsidies under the GATT round, every family in Britain will pay more in increased food prices as a result of trade barriers than they pay in the poll tax? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend should also bear in mind the extra costs caused by trade barriers in relation to cars and consumer electronics. Is it not time that the Government started to take those issues seriously?
    Mrs. Shephard: It was a touch difficult to hear the whole of my hon. Friend's question, but I assure him that the issues that he raises about the GATT round are taken very seriously by the Government.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new job and invite her to win the support of the House by repudiating the policy adopted by her predecessor of refusing to give the House the figures for the distributional effect of the poll tax on the tax burden. Does the hon. Lady understand that such a refusal completely undermines the initiative taken by the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday? The Treasury team can take campaigning against that right hon. Gentleman a little too far. Is not the truth of the matter that the Treasury has the figures and is concealing them because their effect is deeply embarrassing to the Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) for their kind welcome. I remind the hon. Gentleman that nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in. The figures are not available. The increased burden on families from the community charge has been the result of Labour-controlled local authorities spending well in excess of appropriate levels. I remind him that at least 10 million people get help through community charge benefit.
    Mr. Conway: It is delightful to see my hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box today in that capacity. She is there because of her ability and not because of her gender. [Interruption.] Labour Members should listen to this—they might enjoy it. Is not it the case that four out of five families with children of school age pay direct taxation? Does my hon. Friend think that they would be happier to have the high spending plans and taxation policies of the Labour party?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am not sure whether to thank my hon. Friend for his obviously well-intentioned welcome to the Dispatch Box. I will make no comment on the gender-oriented remark. Of course people prefer to have a cut in direct taxation.

    Hard Ecu
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to modify his hard ecu scheme.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The United Kingdom proposals for a hard ecu have been widely welcomed as a positive contribution to the ongoing debate on EMU. The ideas first put forward by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will continue to be developed and discussed with European Community colleagues.
    Mr. Beith: I congratulate the Chancellor on his appointment and remind him that one of his first tasks will be to convince the Rome conference that there is still life in the hard ecu scheme. Does he agree that he will have to satisfy two conditions to do that? He will have to demonstrate, first, that the scheme can lead directly to single currency and then that the institution running the currency will not be subject to political interference in its responsibility for price stability. Are those conditions acceptable to the Chancellor and to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Lamont: On the hon. Gentleman's point about how independent a European monetary institution should be, he is not correct. There are a variety of views and not all countries are in favour of fully independent institutions. For example, the French take a different view from the Germans. A number of countries have expressed interest in the hard ecu and the hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the French Finance Minister, Mr. Bérégovoy has said that he thinks that the full potential of the hard ecu should be explored as a contribution towards stage 2. We have said that the hard ecu could, in time and if people and markets wish it, evolve towards a single currency, but only on that basis—that individuals chose so to do.
    Mr. Dykes: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his first appearance as Chancellor. Will he confirm that the hard ecu proposals can fit felicitously into the longer-term EMU objectives? Will he remind the House that the European central bank proposals being worked out also include the full involvement of all the national central banks?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right on the last point. On Sunday, I discussed those very issues both with other Finance Ministers and with the governors of the banks of Europe. On the first point, I have made the position clear. We see that it could evolve, but this is an approach that is market driven and involves individuals choosing how the monetary system of Europe should develop.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Chancellor share the view of his Financial Secretary, who told the House of Lords Select Committee on 9 October that in his view the hard ecu could lead to a single currency even more quickly than the Delors programme, or the view of the Prime Minister, who told the House on 30 October that the hard ecu would not be widely used in any case and therefore could not lead to a single currency? Does the Chancellor back his Minister, or the back-seat driver? What is his view?
    Mr. Lamont: In putting that question, the hon. Gentleman shows that he does not understand the hard ecu proposal at all. We have repeatedly made it clear that what the hard ecu would ultimately lead to would depend on what individuals and markets decide. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the

    441
    Financial Secretary have expressed their views about the speed at which any change might happen and it is perfectly in keeping with the theme of letting people choose the hard ecu that those different views should be expressed.
    Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday the French Finance Minister, whom he has just mentioned, said that the move towards economic and monetary union can be achieved only by the simultaneous erection of an economic Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree?
    Mr. Lamont: We have always feared that an imposed single currency and an early imposition of monetary union must lead to a degree of political integration for which I do not believe the people on the continent of Europe are ready.

    Intergovernmental Conferences
    Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work he is undertaking in preparing for the intergovernmental conference in December.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put forward proposals for a hard ecu and European Monetary Fund, for which I shall be arguing at the intergovernmental conference on EMU. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has put forward suggestions for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Community in the context of the intergovernmental conference on institutional reform and he is working up those ideas in preparation for that conference.
    Mr. Sedgemore: I ask the Chancellor again: does he intend to reaffirm the support that he gave just two weeks ago to the Bruges group of anti-European Tory Members of Parliament or, having no further use for their votes, does he intend to repudiate their views at the intergovernmental conference? Bearing in mind the fact that his Financial Secretary now says that we can move speedily towards the creation of a single European currency through the hard ecu, what will happen to notes in circulation when he abolishes the pound?
    Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his close study of the speech that I made two weeks ago. He has asked me about it not just today but four times yesterday at the Select Committee. My answer today is no different from my answer yesterday, and that is that the speech that I gave then was in accordance with Government policy and remains so today.
    Mr. David Howell: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his assumption of the high office of Chancellor. He has our very warm support. Is not the point about the hard ecu that it is, unlike the present ecu, a currency that has to be managed and will be managed by a new institution, the European Monetary Fund? Is not it the case, therefore, that once the processes of management develops, it will give markets, customers, individuals and Governments the opportunity to choose whether, in the years ahead, we wish to move to a single currency, enlarging our choice and making it more important?
    Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right and expresses the point well. The hard ecu is not a single currency—it is a common currency and it differs, as he says, from the existing ecu in that it is not just a basket
    442
    currency; it will be a hard counter-inflationary currency, and it will be up to individuals and markets to choose. In that way, the development of monetary union would, if it happened, be entirely evolutionary and in accordance with people's choice.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I congratulate the Chancellor on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this Bench. Now that most of the 11 have started to wriggle out of the commitment to a single currency, will the Chancellor undertake to uphold the freedom and the decision-making power of the Treasury, over which he now presides?
    Mr. Lamont: That is very much our objective.
    Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend, far from repudiating his excellent speech to the Bruges group two weeks ago, take note that the European institutions seem to have read it carefully and moved in his direction—particularly in respect of that part of my right hon. Friend's speech in which he said that economic convergence among member states is a mirage? Does he welcome the apparent change of mood before the forthcoming intergovernmental conferences, at which uniformity will no longer be demanded but instead there will be new emphasis on two-speed or even multi-speed progress towards economic and monetary union?
    Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is a wide variety of growth and inflation rates in the European economy, and a number of member states now acknowledge that one cannot move to a single currency without first achieving much closer convergence than currently exists.

    Tax Avoidance
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent tax avoidance.
    Mr. Maples: The Government have introduced several measures to limit the scope for tax avoidance and are prepared to introduce further measures as and when necessary.
    Mr. Wardell: What is the estimated total loss of tax revenues to the Exchequer through artful dodgers using offshore trusts as a way of avoiding tax?
    Mr. Maples: By the very nature of the tax avoidance mechanism to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is impossible to make such an estimate. We blocked up some loopholes in the Finance Act 1981, but others remain. All questions of tax avoidance are under constant review. Labour tabled a new clause to this year's Finance Bill that would have dealt with one minor aspect, but it is a complex matter. I am advised that simply to introduce an exit charge on trusts to foreign jurisdictions would involve more than six pages of legislation.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective way of reducing tax avoidance is to lower general taxation, which is something that Labour never understands?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is completely right. One reason why Britain has such a widespread and

    443
    sophisticated tax avoidance industry is the ridiculously high marginal rates that we suffered under a Labour Government.

    Small Companies (VAT)
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance he is providing to small companies for the collection and payment of value added tax.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Small businesses are able to take advantage of special facilities for dealing with VAT, including the cash and annual accounting schemes and particular schemes for retailers.
    Mr. Morley: What help will the Minister give to well-established and respected firms such as Multiflex in my constituency, which is being surcharged £30,000 at the 25 per cent. rate as a consequence of the problems that it is experiencing in obtaining payments from its customers in the construction industry? The Minister will appreciate that such companies cannot lean on valued customers and that many of their problems have been created by the high interest rates that flow from Government policies. Given the poor state of the economic climate, should not the Government allow more flexibility and help rather than hinder small businesses?
    Mrs. Shephard: Some smaller firms dependent on bank borrowing are experiencing difficulties and I greatly regret that. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the serious misdeclaration penalty. The company that he mentioned can give reasonable excuse to satisfy Customs or the VAT tribunal and I advise the company to take that action.
    Mr. Bellingham: I add my congratulations to those already expressed to my hon. Friend on her excellent promotion. She will be aware, as she represents a neighbouring constituency to mine, that firms in west Norfolk are pleased about the recent increase in the VAT threshold. Does she agree that Customs and Excise must show the utmost sensitivity and understanding in erasing arrears incurred by small firms?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind welcome. The Government will continue to examine ways in which procedures can be simplified and we shall of course deal sympathetically with companies of the type that he described.

    Economic Performance
    Mr. Bell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss Britain's economic performance.
    Mr. Mellor: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor expects to meet the Governor of the Bank of England from time to time to discuss a variety of matters.
    Mr. Bell: May I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his elevation to the Cabinet? Having sat with him through proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Children Act 1989, I can well understand and appreciate his grasp of detail. Will he confirm that he will need that grasp when he considers the inflation rate of 10·9 per cent., as opposed to that of our European partners, which is half that rate, and when he
    444
    sees that unemployment is rising for the seventh consecutive month, that our interest rates are the highest of all of the Group of Seven industrial countries, and that bankruptcies are 90 per cent. up on this period last year? Will not that give food for sombre thought when the Chancellor next meets the Governor of the Bank of England?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typically generous words at the beginning of his questions. He has obviously chosen some statistics, but there are plenty of others that pay testimony to the real and sustained improvement in the British economy and in British industrial performance in the past decade. I shall try to be up on all of them.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend report to the Governor of the Bank of England that there is growing support throughout the House for greater independence for the bank and that those arguments exist independent of whether there is any sort of monetary union?
    Mr. Mellor: I am aware that there are those who hold that view—I think that quite a lot of other people hold a contrary view. It is by no means demonstrable that a more independent bank would enable the British economy to function more effectively. For instance, the Bank of Japan is one of the least independent banks in the world.
    Mr. Boateng: What action do the Government and the Bank of England propose to take to sort out the appalling mess surrounding "swaps" and to prevent any future repetition of that sort of affair in the interests of the City's international reputation?
    Mr. Mellor: That matter is under consideration and we are awaiting reports on it. I cannot add anything to that.
    Mr. Devlin: What discussions has my right hon. and learned Friend had with the Governor, as the Bank of England is the sole bank of issue south of the Scottish border, about printing its ecu value on one side of a £1 note? If he has had such discussions, will he ask the Governor of the Bank of England for an undertaking that, if such an endorsement is made on every note printed by the bank, the words "Stockton-on-Tees" will not be removed from the back of a £5 note?
    Mr. Mellor: With respect to my hon. Friend, the issue of European monetary union is rather more fundamental than what is printed on a note, but I shall bear that matter in mind when we have our future discussions.

    Indirect Tax
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of their disposable income the bottom quintile group of non-retired households, ranked by original income, paid in total in indirect tax in 1987; and what proportion the top quintile paid using the same method as in "Economic Trends", December 1988.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Calculating the figures on the basis requested, the relevant proportions are 29·4 per cent. for the bottom quintile and 19·2 per cent. for the top quintile.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does not the Government's record on the amount of direct and indirect taxation paid by some of

    445
    the poorest members of our community contrast remarkably with the new Prime Minister's professed aim to establish a classless society? Is not it a fact that the Government's policies have set out deliberately to widen the gap between the richest and the poorest?
    Mrs. Shephard: The fact is that real take-home pay levels have increased under this Government for every income group, and real take-home pay is what matters.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that because real take-home pay has increased for the people of the United Kingdom, not least for the people of Scotland—where there are more people in work today than at any time in history—they are now able to spend their money as they wish and to enjoy holidays abroad, which their parents never even dreamed of?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that people have more choice in the way in which they spend their money, and indirect taxes take up broadly the same proportion of household expenditure for households on all levels of income. That is why the Government have chosen to shift some of the burden from direct to indirect taxation.

    Taxes and National Insurance
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent forecast for the proportion of non-oil gross domestic product that taxes and national insurance contributions will represent in 1990–91.
    Mr. Maples: The figure is 371¼per cent.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that, in the year 1978–79, the figure was only 34 per cent? While we appreciate that the Government have reduced personal income tax, that has tended to benefit the rich and in the past 10 years the overall tax burden has increased. Is not that rather different from the impression that the Government tend to give the country?
    Mr. Maples: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that we have reduced the burden of income tax. What his question left out was the fact that in 1978–79 the Labour Government were running a public sector borrowing requirement amounting to 5½ per cent. of gross domestic product. If that is added to the tax burden, the total comes to over 40 per cent., as against the present figure of under 37 per cent. If our public sector borrowing requirement were now at the same level as it was then, it would be £30 billion.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that what matters to ordinary families is how much money they have, and that that aspect has improved? Does he agree that tax receipts are affected by tax expenditures and that a couple with a mortgage and above-average earnings will continue to receive the equivalent of 12 child benefits? Perhaps the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue could get together and concentrate as much on that as they have on the level of child allowance and child benefits.
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is quite right: what matters to most families is the amount of their take-home pay. Under the present Government, the take-home pay of
    446
    a person on average earnings has risen by more than 30 per cent., or the equivalent of £58 a week. Under the previous Labour Government, it rose by 1 per cent.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms. Quin: Does the Prime Minister recall that only two days ago he appealed to his party to close ranks? Can he explain why so many of his colleagues refused to support him in the poll tax debate last night? Can he also explain why the British people, many of whom have suffered hardship as a result of this tax, should be expected to have any confidence in the Conservative party, when it is now clear that Tory Members who originally voted to impose the poll tax on us clearly did not believe in it all along?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is slightly mistaken. A large number of my ministerial and Back-Bench colleagues were abroad unpaired yesterday, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip saw no need to bring them back, because we are united.
    Mr. Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has not gone unnoticed on Teesside and in the north-east that, on Tuesday night, he supported the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill in the Lobby, and that the Leader of the Opposition did not oppose it? My right hon. Friend will be most welcome throughout the north-east when he makes his frequent visits—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who has occasionally dropped in on the Durham miners' gala and then scarpered back to the south.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I look forward to visiting Langbaurgh and the north-east on many occasions.
    Mr. Kinnock: When he knows what he knows, why does the Prime Minister refuse to abolish the poll tax now?
    The Prime Minister: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman and his party—who have, on the latest count, changed their policy on this matter on 52 occasions—we are conducting a comprehensive review to determine how best to deal with it.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm for the British people that the poll tax will still be in place at the time of the next general election?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made it perfectly clear yesterday that we were undertaking a fundamental review, and a fundamental review is what we shall undertake. We shall see how long that will take. I think that the country will notice that, although he professes to oppose the system, the right hon. Gentleman will make no constructive moves towards a constructive dialogue to correct it.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the right hon. Gentleman's proposal last night did not even convince his hon. Friends, how does he seriously expect it to convince anybody else? Will he now answer the question? Will he confirm that the poll tax will still be in place at the next general election—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman might confirm that he has made it clear that under his plans the time scale for change may be considerable.
    Mr. Fishburn: Will my right hon. Friend win the hearts of Londoners today by endorsing the proposals for leasehold reform put forward last week by the Lord Chancellor? Does he accept that the draft Bill for commonhold will allow London flat dwellers to own their flats on freehold for the first time, thereby ending the injustices of leasehold that make so many London flat dwellers into second-class home owners?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, over the past 10 years we have done more to increase owner-occupation, with the personal security that that offers, than any previous Government. It is noticeable that that is not the policy of the Labour party.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that we welcome the proposal made last night for discussions with Opposition parties on a replacement for the poll tax? My party will contribute constructively to those discussions. We shall not play parliamentary games while millions out there are suffering from the effects of this unjust tax. In that context, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember the promise that he made in his 1974 election address, in which he said that he would abolish the rates——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we need visual aids.
    Mr. Ashdown: —in which he said that he would abolish the rates——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can make his point without the visual signs.
    Mr. Ashdown: He said that he would abolish the rates and replace them with a tax related to the ability to pay. Does he still agree with that and does he realise that the only tax properly related to ability to pay is a local income tax?
    The Prime Minister: On the last point, the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are considering local taxation at the moment. On the first point, I share what I think is implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman said, which is that the House of Commons need not necessarily be a perpetual cockpit of confrontation. I regret very much that Labour Members, despite all that they said, have no intention of helping to determine common principles for the role of local government. If they do not wish to do so, that is a matter for them, but others will.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Michael Lord. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Order.
    Mr. Lord: As our new Prime Minister will have considerably fewer problems to deal with on taking over his appointment, may I urge him to bring to the top of the list the problem of haemophiliacs who have been infected with the AIDS virus through no fault of their own? He
    448
    would earn the undying gratitude of the victims, their families and the House if he could take steps to bring about an out-of-court settlement as quickly as possible.
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has made it clear that we are spending a considerable amount of money to deal with that problem, which we shall continually keep under review.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the past 12 months a baby has been abducted from a hospital in London, an 11-year-old girl has been raped at a hospital in Surrey, a 77-year-old woman has been indecently assaulted at a hospital in Leeds and last week two doctors were murdered at a hospital in Wakefield? As the Government are committed to spending about £200 million on allowing hospitals to opt out, but a mere £20,000 on hospital security, does the Prime Minister feel that he has his priorities right?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that the direct management of hospitals lies with health authorities and, in the case of national health service trusts, with the management of those trusts in due course. I am sure that they will take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be almost universal delight and gratitude if, before Christmas, the problem of the haemophilia AIDS victims were solved by adequate compensation being paid without liability being admitted?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we have already made a payment into the Macfarlane Trust. I understand the sensitive nature of the matter, but I have nothing further to add today.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Prime Minister aware that of the 181 children who left Pennywell comprehensive school in my constituency earlier this year, only 10 found some form of employment, 32 went on to higher education, and of the remaining 150 or so, half went on to Government training schemes, which will lead to the dole, and the other half went directly on to the dole? What hope can he offer the children of Sunderland that life in John Major's Britain will be any different from life in Margaret Thatcher's Britain?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been considerable improvements in every aspect of life in the past 10 years, and that will continue. On the specific point that he made, a larger percentage of our youngsters now go on to further education than ever before, a higher percentage of our population is in work than ever before and there is a higher level of opportunities

    449
    and training than ever before. That bodes well for the young people of Sunderland and indeed for young people everywhere.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that many local education authorities, including mine of Kirklees, are holding back far more of their education budgets for central administration than was originally intended by the Government? As the Government have announced that they intend to carry out a full review of the structure of local government, does he think that we should consider taking the control of education out of the hands of local education authorities and giving it to schools?
    The Prime Minister: I have considerable sympathy with that point of view, not least because of the enormous success of local management of schools. I hope that education authorities will release as much money as possible to go directly into the classroom.
    Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Smith: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, as a result of the frantic trawling for options and ideas that is under way in the Department of the Environment, there will be any reduction whatsoever in the poll tax bills that people will receive in April, or will the amounts be precisely the same as they were always going to be?
    The Prime Minister: As for trawling for options, I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party has had 52 changes of mind on local government. That is not so much a U-turn as a merry-go-round.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that manufacturing industry is the only genuine source of non-inflationary growth and that the continuing use of high interest rates is damaging to investment and to competitiveness? Will my right hon. Friend look again at an alternative industrial manufacturing strategy?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the central core of economic policy is to bear down on
    450
    inflation. As it reduces—and I expect that it will reduce, which is the general view of external commentators as well—the options may exist for a reduction in interest rates. I can give no indication of when that may be.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister agree that given that two of the Polaris submarines are no longer seaworthy and that the other two were on the Clyde earlier this week, he is the first Prime Minister for 20 years not to have had a nuclear deterrent at his fingertips? Does he further agree that that did not cause him or the country any problems? Will he now agree that, rather than trying to patch up the remaining Polaris submarines, he should abandon the whole programme and give a clear lead to the non-proliferation talks in January that we want to have a non-nuclear world?
    The Prime Minister: Our nuclear capacity remains a deterrent and remains an important part of our defence.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: As my former area Whip—which until now has, no doubt, been his greatest claim to distinction—will my right hon. Friend comment on the possibility of some change being brought to the hours that the House works? Will he tell me why, having had that matter raised on many occasions in the 20 years in which I have been in the House, I remain skeptical? What can my right hon. Friend do to reassure me?
    The Prime Minister: I have fond memories of being my hon. Friend's Whip some years ago. The hours of work in the House are essentially a matter for the Procedure Committee and for hon. Members themselves. Each will have his own individual views. If the House were to express views, I do not think that I would stand against them.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House please tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Road Traffic Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY II DECEMBER—There will be a debate on the Gulf crisis on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion to amend schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.
WEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Deepening Economic Recession".
Motion to take note of EC document relating to non-standard employment. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion to take note of EC document relating to a research and development programme on information technology. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 13 DECEMBER—Estimates Day (1st Allotted Day) (first part). There will be a debate on class IV, vote 2, Department of Trade and Industry, so far as it relates to investigations under the Companies Act and the Financial Services Act.
There will be a debate on fisheries on a Government motion.
At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the civil and defence votes on account and the outstanding winter supplementary estimates.
FRIDAY 14 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on Her Majesty's Government's progress in assisting economic reform and addressing environment and population issues in the developing world, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 17 DECEMBER—Proceedings in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill on new clauses relating to capital punishment.
The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, I now propose that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Thursday 20 December until Monday 14 January.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that that bit of good news will enable us to make progress.
[Wednesday 12 December 1991
(1) Relevant European Community Documents 6864/90 Information Technology Research Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 11-xxx (1989–90) para 1
(2) Relevant European Community Documents
(a) 8072/90
Non-standard Work
(b) 9601/90
Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 11-xxxii (1989–90) para 1
(b) None yet reported on.]
Dr. John Cunningham: Clearly, it would be totally inappropriate for me to criticise the Leader of the House about the length of the Christmas parliamentary recess. However, it is much longer than it would normally be. If there are any serious developments in the Gulf crisis, the Opposition would expect Parliament to be recalled, especially if any conflict were to develop.
Will the Leader of the House say whether it is his intention to meet his obligations under the Standing Orders and proceed to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Is it not the case that, if any other hon. Member were in persistent conflict with the Standing Orders, action would be taken to correct the behaviour of that hon. Member? Although it is very unusual for the Leader of the House to be in persistent conflict with our Standing Orders, that realistically and accurately is the position in which the right hon. Gentleman now finds himself. He has a duty to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and we urge him now to carry it out.
Will the Leader of the House confirm that, for the second time in this Parliament, we are to vote on the restoration of capital punishment? Is it not within the memory of the whole House that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when Home Secretary, indicated to the House that our previous decision on capital punishment would deal with that matter for this Parliament? Is it not clear that that was just a rash promise made at the Tory party conference and that that is the only reason why the matter is to come before the House?
Can we expect a debate on revenue support grant before Christmas? It is an important matter for all hon. Members, their constituents and local authorities. Will the Leader of the House ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment makes a report so that we can have the earliest possible indication of the poll tax levels that our constituents will have to face next year? When the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) makes that statement, will he explain to the House why, on 16 December 1987, during the Second Reading debate on the poll tax Bill, when I proposed on behalf of the Opposition that we should seek consensus on local government finance, the right hon. Member for Henley, who spoke immediately after me, rejected it outright and said that there was no hope of a consensus from Conservative Members? What has happened to make him change his mind?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my announcement on the recess will be welcomed by the whole House. It is not wholly right to say that it is much longer than usual. It is certainly longer than last year's, but the Session started two weeks later last year. I know that there is concern, as was expressed during Prime Minister's Question Time, about the hours of the House. It is true that we work very long hours in the House. I hope that the announcement about the slightly longer break from parliamentary duties in the House will be welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman requested that Parliament be recalled in the event of serious developments in the Gulf. Obviously I take serious note of that point and I understand why he made it.

453
On the hon. Gentleman's point about a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, I have little to add to what I said earlier, except that having looked again at the matter I am convinced that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make further progress on that matter in the coming Session. As the hon. Gentleman will know, many other opportunities are available, including the Scottish Grand Committee and Select Committees, for hon. Members to question Scottish Ministers on Scottish matters. Many of the relevant Scottish Members of Parliament have many other parliamentary commitments.
As for the debate on capital punishment, it is in order for new clauses and amendments to be tabled to the present Criminal Justice Bill, and indeed one such new clause has already been tabled to that Bill for consideration in Standing Committee. We took the view that it would be right to enable the whole House to express its view on any such new clauses and amendments, and that is why we are taking the matter as part of the deliberations of the Committee of the whole House. I believe that that is what the House wants and that that course will be for the convenience of hon. Members. I have also put down a business motion to enable all new clauses and amendments thereto which are tabled by 12 December to be taken so that we may have a full and proper debate on the matter, and I believe that that is what the House would want.
As for revenue support grant, the hon. Gentleman will know that consultations on the Government's proposals were completed on 28 November. I know that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for the Environment to lay the orders shortly, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I say now that they will not be debated before the Christmas recess.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Today, in the subsequent debate on the EEC, no fewer than 30 right hon. and hon. Members will be seeking to participate, and it will probably be necessary for me to put a 10-minute limit on speeches. I ask hon. Members who are now asking business questions to confine their questions to the business for next week, and not make speeches which they might otherwise make on other occasions.
Mr. Michael Latham: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 36 in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), myself and 172 other hon. Members concerning the serious problems of algae in our rivers and the need for a Bill to get phosphates out of household detergents?
[That this House expresses its concern that, in addition to Rutland Water, some 501 rivers, lakes and waterways in England and Wales alone, with more in Scotland and Northern Ireland, have suffered algal blooms at levels which may be toxic, as a result of eutrophication caused by phosphates, some 30 per cent. of which is attributable to phosphates in detergents; voices its further concern about the environmental problems of certain commonly-used household detergent compositions, particularly from the use of phosphates and phosphate substitutes, the inadequate biodegradability of other chemicals in detergents and the failure of most manufacturers to provide consumers with full information on the contents and environmental impact of household cleaners; notes that the Government's Environment White Paper did not accept the arguments of
454
The Control of Detergents Pollution Bill, introduced in the last session, to control the use of phosphates, increase the level of biodegradability and introduce comprehensive labelling; further notes that numerous EC countries have imposed restrictions on phosphates in detergents; and urges all hon. Members to encourage the Government to act for consumer and environmental protection.]
May we have a statement on that subject next week as the Government could take action urgently to improve the environment?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern. The Government accept that heightened levels of phosphate can lead to eutrophication, but experience shows that input from detergents is seldom the major cause. Consideration of amendments to the law relating to detergent composition and use should, in our view, await the results of a study commissioned by the Department of the Environment into substitutes for phosphates in detergents, and that is why I cannot promise a statement next week.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that I am very disturbed at the different answers given by the Prime Minister on Tuesday and today about haemophiliacs? On Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman was asked if he would give urgent consideration to the question of haemophiliacs and he said that he would do so. Today, when the Prime Minister was asked that question, he merely reiterated the old ministerial answer that we are giving money to the Macfarlane fund and the matter is under review. That represents a serious difference and a shift of opinion. May we have a statement next week about where the Prime Minister and the Government stand on the issue? Will there be urgent consideration, or will the answer merely be that we are giving more money and that there will be a standard review?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said and I, too, have made comments on the matter at business questions. The Prime Minister made it clear that we are keeping the figure under review, and I cannot add to that now.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that Southampton district council has asked me to request a debate next week about the serious case of the taxi licensing committee which gave a licence to a formerly convicted rapist, a matter which was not revealed during the hearing of the committee. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to make sure that the police authorities provide that sort of information to licensing committees? We really cannot have former rapists driving our taxi cabs.
Mr. MacGregor: I can well understand that it is a matter of concern to my hon. Friend. I cannot say that we can find time in Government time next week to debate the issue, but he will know that there are opportunities available to him, not necessarily next week, to raise the matter in the House.
Rev. Martin Smyth: While the Leader of the House is basking in being Santa Claus and giving us early holidays, will he bring out of his bag of goodies an

455
announcement to hold a Select Committee on Northern Ireland next week because the so-called rational reasons given for its delay are irrational?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that will be one of the things coming out of the bag next week.
Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Ben Hopper, the two-year-old British son of a British single parent who is one of my constituents, is to be extradited to Canada against his mother's will under what can best be described as a quirk of the Hague convention? Through Government sources, will my right hon. Friend encourage the Canadian Government to afford Mrs. Hopper legal aid in Canada? Will he please ensure that in future sufficient time is devoted to debates in the House upon conventions and treaties before they are signed by the British Government?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend has already pursued the individual case with the appropriate Minister. I have noted the point that he made about conventions more generally.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Greville Janner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ohl He was last, last week.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the dangers to elderly people who allow strangers into their homes? They face the risk of personal violence such as that suffered by a Leicestershire pensioner last week who was robbed of all her possessions by a con man. Meanwhile, will the right hon. Gentleman commend the Leicestershire police for their Conwatch scheme, with Age Concern, and ask the Home Secretary to suggest that similar schemes should be brought forward throughout the country?
Mr. MacGregor: Certainly, I commend the Leicestershire police and I am sure that the House will be sorry to hear of the individual case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. As he will know, there have been tremendous progress and developments in Homewatch and all such neighbourhood watch schemes throughout the United Kingdom. I shall draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I cannot promise a debate next week.
Sir Ian Lloyd: The Procedure Committee report referred to by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago contained a number of recommendations that were so unequivocal, persuasive, rational and convincing that a number of us put down an early-day motion a few weeks ago. When are the Government likely to introduce resolutions arising from that report?
Mr. MacGregor: If my hon. Friend has in mind the issue of parliamentary hours and an early-day motion on that subject, rather than one of the other Procedure Committee reports, there have been many suggestions in the past, some of which have been implemented, and whatever is done depends on the co-operation of all hon. Members. We are currently considering how to implement one proposal involving European documents and schemes to reduce the pressure of business in the Chamber. I hope
456
that we can proceed with that idea because it would help. I am happy to look at how we might consider further any other suggestions from hon. Members, and I am also aware of some of the difficulties.
If my hon. Friend was referring to something different, the Joint Committee on Science and Technology—it was not clear from his question—the Government are currently considering the Procedure Committee report on that, and will reply to its recommendations in due course.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the subject of AIDS, how the Government's publicity programme can be improved, and why family planning clinics are allowed to give free condoms while general practitioners are not although it is young heterosexual males who most need to be made aware of their responsibilities for safe sex?
Mr. MacGregor: Matters relating to AIDS are often discussed in the House and I have no doubt that there will be many opportunities to do so in various ways in future, but I cannot promise a debate next week.
Mr. Chris Butler: There is a groundswell of opinion in my constituency that we are not doing enough as a nation for our service men in the Gulf to help them celebrate the festive season. The Ministry of Defence concert has collapsed in some ignominy. Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate the subject?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made his position—that everything possible should be done—very clear in questions earlier this week. I also note that there will be an opportunity to debate this and many other subjects relating to the Gulf in the debate on a motion for the Adjournment next Tuesday.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: What is the timetable for all-party talks or consultations on the poll tax? Will they truly involve every political party in the House and will they start before Christmas?
Mr. MacGregor: That clearly depends on the reaction of those political parties. The House will have noted the muddle and confusion coming from one direction last night. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make some announcements about the timing shortly.
Mr. John Gorst: Would my right hon. Friend consider supporting a constitutional reform which might be of service to Members on both sides of the House? I have in mind allotting a certain amount of time for a Leader of the Opposition's Question Time so that right hon. and hon. Members can have an opportunity to follow the various rapid changes in Opposition policy.
Mr. MacGregor: That is an excellent idea, and the House will have noted it, but I have a suspicion that how it might be carried out is not a matter for me.
Mr. Tony Benn: The Leader of the House will know that the debate on Tuesday on the Gulf is only the second that we have had since the crisis began, and that with the longer Christmas recess we shall not meet again until the day before the United Nations deadline expires. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although, in a statement shortly to be made, there will be a welcome for

457
the release of the hostages, the question of the response to the situation in the middle east by the British and American Governments now arises. Will he assure the House that there will be an authoritative statement on this matter, which I hope will tone down the warlike statements made by some people in Washington and London, and will he ensure that there is an opportunity for the House to reach a judgment in a vote on Tuesday, just as the American Congress is demanding a vote before it decides whether to support the US President's policy.
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the importance of this issue. I should have thought that that was clear from the amount of time that we have devoted to it in the House. We have had two statements followed by lengthy exchanges in the past two weeks, and there is another statement today. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a clear statement in the debate next Tuesday—so we are giving a good deal of time to the issue.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will be aware that next week the civil service efficiency unit will be publishing a report on the future of the Public Record Office. Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to take another look at the business of the House for next week and see whether there would be room to debate that important report, in the hope that the Public Record Office might become a candidate for privatisation or that it might at the very least be given agency status in the near future?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted what my hon. Friend said. It would be necessary to look at the report first. if also think that the business of the House next week is fairly full, so I do not think that it will be possible to include this subject then.
Mr. Jack Thompson: As it is some considerable time since we held a debate on the Government's regional policies, will the Leader of the House consider allowing an early debate to consider the situation in the north and to permit the 26 Labour Members, six Conservative Members and even one Liberal Member representing northern constituencies to make a contribution to it?
Mr. MacGregor: These matters were relevant to the debate that we had on the Queen's Speech. There will be another debate on the economy next week, so there is clearly ample opportunity for hon. Members to put their points of view during that debate.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As the new Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), has had a welcome conversion on the road to Damascus due to experiences in his constituency, and as he is now opposed to excessive development in the south-east, may we soon have a debate on planning, especially in the light of the fact that Berkshire is having to re-examine its structure plan?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted what my hon. Friend has said and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I do not see an opportunity for a debate on these matters in the near future.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Following the hamfisted way in which the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was dismissed, is the right hon. Gentleman aware
458
that Conservative Members are threatening to refuse to serve on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs? Will he give an undertaking that in no way will such a method be used to bring the Committee's work to an end? Will he undertake to make a statement next week that the Committee will continue irrespective of the antics of his colleagues?
Mr. MacGregor: I have no plans on that point.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: With Christmas coming, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look at early-day motion 168 which has been tabled today?
[That this House, gravely concerned about the horrific plight of the many orphans dying behind barbed wire in Romanian institutions, vividly and harrowingly broadcast by Sky Newsline and others, congratulates all those who are providing desperately needed humanitarian aid, both directly and indirectly; calls for all possible further assistance to be rendered both in Romania itself, and to those who are offering to adopt such children into their own families in this country; and welcomes all contributions to the Parliamentary Appeal for Romanian Children.]
Could we possibly find time for a debate on the crisis in Romania, the appalling conditions in the orphanages there, and the problems faced by British couples who are trying to adopt handicapped Romanian orphans?
Mr. MacGregor: I know my hon. Friend's great interest in these matters and I have noted the early-day motion. We fully support the spirit of the motion. That was made clear by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in a debate on the subject on 15 November.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement about a serious situation in all the Royal Ordnance factories? The British Telecom coverage for those companies from 7 am to 5 o'clock is one of the worst services ever provided for such companies. If there were any breakdown in the system there would be no maintenance at all after 5 o'clock or at the weekend. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will arrange for his right hon. Friend to tell us how that can be improved so that we can have 24-hour coverage in those factories every day of the year.
Mr. MacGregor: I doubt whether that is appropriate for a statement in the House next week, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Next Thursday, or in future when we debate and vote upon the restoration of capital punishment, would it be possible at the same time to debate the desirability of a national referendum so that the British people can decide for themselves, once and for all, on this most emotive subject?
Mr. MacGregor: I will forbear from making my own comments on the desirability of referendums. However, I doubt whether a referendum, if one were undertaken, would lead to a once-and-for-all decision. In the debate that will take place on Monday week the House will have an opportunity to vote again on this important issue. It will be up to hon. Members to decide what new clauses to put down. We shall endeavour to ensure that it is a

459
thoroughly proper debate. No doubt it will be possible to raise the issue of referendums, but I doubt whether that will be the key issue in the debate.
Mr. James Lamond: May we take it that there will be a statement next week, or perhaps even tomorrow, about the outcome of the GATT negotiations in Brussels? Those negotiations are tremendously important to many of my constituents who work in textiles. We want to know what is happening and perhaps we could even have a debate on this important subject.
Mr. MacGregor: We have recently had a debate on the important subject of the GATT negotiations. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a crucial issue. He will know about the clear and constructive role that the Government have been playing in the European Community in striving for a successful outcome to the negotiations. We are all aware of the serious implications if we fail to reach such an outcome. I cannot predict exactly when developments might lead to the point at which it would be relevant to make a statement, but I am certain that my right hon. Friends who are conducting the negotiations are aware of that. It might be appropriate to make a statement about the matter at the right time.
Mr. David Wilshire: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 154 which explains that the Government are under pressure to take a decision before the end of the year on United Airlines' application to take over PanAm's slots at Heathrow?
[That this House notes United Airlines' request to operate services from Heathrow in succession to Pan Am; notes that Pan Am will collapse without such an agreement; believes that United Airlines' services from Heathrow will provide much needed competition to British Airways and will improve the standard and quality of service as well as increase choice for the customer; and urges the Government to examine this issue as a matter of urgency and to grant permission by the end of the year, consistent with its policy of liberalisation of, and greater competition in, air travel.]
May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my amendment to that, which explains that if that pressure were successful it would harm the airport and my constituents? Will my right hon. Friend find out whether the Government are likely to give in to that pressure? If they are, will he make sure that we have a debate before the end of the year so that those of us who object can explain why we should not yield to that pressure?
Mr. MacGregor: I know of my hon. Friend's concern. I am not sure that it would be right to have a debate before the end of this calendar year because we are in close touch with the United States Government about the implications of the proposal by United Airlines for our bilateral aviation relations. Any decision on whether United Airlines can operate services to Heathrow must await the outcome of the Civil Aviation Authority's review of the 1986 traffic distribution rules for airports serving the London area. The Civil Aviation Authority will be reporting to Ministers early in the new year, and at that point my hon. Friend may like to take up the matter again.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will the Leader of the House take into account the fact that the Select Committee on Energy is concerned about the future of the coal
460
industry? Contracts for British coal are short term—three years—and will expire in 1992–93. As the future of the coal industry is important to the House, the economy and the country, may we have a debate to consider that future?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted what the hon. Member said. This is an important industry of great concern to the House, but I am not sure when, or in what way, it might be possible to have a debate on the matter.
Mr. Tim Devlin: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, the question that I asked you on Tuesday? As the hon. Members for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) have arrived here this week with a combined vote less than that cast in my constituency in the last general election, would it not be in order to have a debate on the equal representation of the kingdom?
Mr. MacGregor: There have been many debates on that matter. I cannot see much prospect of another in the near future.
Mr. Merlyn Rees.: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Transport about how announcements about the allocation of money for the building of freight depots are made? In Morley and Leeds, South, Leeds city council spent £2 million buying land in Stourton for a depot that it was informed would be coming to the area. Although none of us has actually been informed, we understand that tomorrow there will be a press conference in the Hilton hotel in Garforth, at which we shall be told that the depot is to be placed elsewhere. I do not argue about that, although I could, but what a way to carry on! We are told that this is a commercial decision, but it is more than that to the north. The announcement should be made in the House.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the right hon. Member will understand that I am not aware of that matter. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the National House-Building Council warranty scheme is expected to be presented to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry before Christmas and possibly next week. May we have a statement or a debate on this important matter, and could my right hon. Friend impress upon our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that that report should be published as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that there will not be room for a debate on this matter before Christmas. I do not know whether a statement would be appropriate, but I shall have a discussion with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge the importance of the GATT talks which are currently in train in Brussels, especially in relation to textiles and to agricultural support? Even if conclusions have not been reached, will there be a statement on this before Christmas because the technicalities involved and the far-reaching implications of

461
the talks are such that it would not be right for the House to go into recess without a clear view of the Government's attitude.
Mr. MacGregor: As I made clear a moment ago, I am aware of the serious implications of any breakdown in these negotiations. As Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I took a major part in them in the first two years and was involved in the mid-term review in Montreal. We do not know how they will develop, as the picture is changing during the day. I have shown by the fact that we have already had one full day's debate on the matter that I am aware of its importance, and I will ensure that the House is kept properly informed of any developments.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As we are making something of a new start, could we drop the War Crimes Bill—a piece of gesture politics which, when it first came to the House on a free vote, was not supported by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary, and about which the vast majority of hon. Members, privately if not publicly, have great reservations? If not, what amendments are the Government thinking of tabling to emasculate it?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear on Tuesday that that proposed legislation is in the Queen's Speech and that we shall be bringing it forward at the proper time, along with any amendments.
Mr. David Young: In view of the already declared redundancies in the defence industries, which are but the tip of the iceberg, when can we expect a debate on the redeployment of important skills and retraining to deal with the skills shortage, responsibility for which should not be laid at the doors of the families of the skilled engineers and others who have worked so hard for Britain and are now, apparently, to be thrown en the scrap heap?
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, the response to any change in the market which may come about as a result of fewer defence sales is a matter for the companies themselves. The hon. Gentleman will know that the full range of Government employment training and enterprise services and programmes will be made available in the areas affected. In addition, last Friday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced that extra help and advice will be made available for workers affected by the closures.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if an amended War Crimes Bill were thrown out by the other place the Parliament Act would not be able to come into effect?
Will he also agree with me on a separate point——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked one question, and it is not in order to ask a Minister to agree with an hon. Member.
Mr. MacGregor: We shall have to wait and see what progress we make.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a further statement from the Foreign Secretary after the one that he is to make this afternoon to mark the fact that this weekend will see the third anniversary of the intifada in the occupied territories
462
in which more than 1,000 people have been killed, many of them children, and tens of thousands have been injured? Why have the Palestinians waited 23 years for action to be taken against Israel's occupation of the west bank and Gaza? Do the Government have any new proposals?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is sitting beside me and has heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that he has answered the hon. Gentleman's point on many occasions.
Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to arrange for a statement on Monday from the Foreign Office on the Antarctic treaty negotiations which are taking place in Chile this week?
Mr. MacGregor: I believe that a lengthy statement has recently been made on that.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a matter which is not mentioned a great deal but which is set out in early-day motion 1159.
[That this House is concerned about the plight of the estimated 98,000 incidences of children who run away each year and end up missing on the streets of our major cities; takes note of the Council of Europe recommendation R79(6) adopted in April 1979, which calls on member countries to develop systems to trace missing persons; further notes the recent report from the Association of Chief Police Officers recommending the establishment of a computerised national register to aid in tracing missing persons; and calls upon the Government to ensure that such a system is set up as a matter of urgency so that these children may be protected from danger, their problems may be addressed and reconciliation may be effected where possible.]
That has the signatures of no fewer than 219 hon. Members and it concerns the tracing of missing children. It requests a computer register of the large number of missing children, many of whom come from the north to London. May we have a debate on that important subject?
Mr. MacGregor: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am trying to keep up with all the early-day motions that have appeared on the Order Paper this Session, but I have not recently read those from the previous Session. I will have a look at early-day motion 1159.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to come to the House next week arid announce the identities of those Opposition parties prepared to join him in discussions on the poll tax? If the list should include the Scottish National party, that would be no surprise. It saved the skins of the Tory party in 1979 and it is prepared to repeat that heinous crime in 1991. The people of Scotland are surprised that it refused to join the Scottish Constitutional Convention to discuss the future of the Scottish people, yet it is now prepared to join the Tory Government in order to save them again.
Mr. MacGregor: A statement will not be necessary because the position will become very clear. The situation now is vastly different compared with 1979.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will do my best to call all those right hon. and hon. Members who are on their feet, but I ask them to confine their questions to the subject of next week's business.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I ask the Leader of the House to make time next week to debate the GATT negotiations? The last such debate was dominated by agriculture, but time should be given to discussing also the textile industries. The GATT negotiations, which will affect 500,000 textile and clothing workers in the United Kingdom, should introduce protection against dumping and a social clause. In Bradford, 14,000 workers depend on the textile industry, and there ought to be both a statement on the GATT negotiations and a debate in Government time because it is the Government and the EEC who are conducting them on behalf of this country.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that I will consider the most appropriate way of reporting developments in the GATT negotiations to the House. Agriculture is critical to those negotiations, so it is understandable that much of the last debate was devoted to that aspect, which is important to the future of our farmers. That recent debate was in Government time.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the fact that Allerdale district council poll tax payers face the prospect of picking up a multi-million pound bill for a failed timeshare development which was built on the ill-considered recommendation and advice of that authority's chief executive, should not that matter be referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment and a full inquiry be undertaken to allay public concern?
Mr. MacGregor: I have read the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion on that subject, but, as he knows, local authorities are independent bodies responsible to the courts and to their own electors for their actions. It is not for the Government to intervene in such matters.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: I welcome the fact that, thanks to the Opposition, there is to be a debate next week on the recession.. Before then, will the Government make a full statement, which right hon. and hon. Members can take into account when preparing their speeches, on the projected closure of two British Aerospace factories and the loss of 5,000 jobs? Surely the fatuous words of the Secretary of State for Employment about self-employment for those redundant workers cannot be the Government's sole response to the crisis.
Mr. MacGregor: It would not be right to make a statement on that matter in advance, simply in order that right hon. and hon. Members could respond in their own way during the debate. The Government's position on British Aerospace's proposals is already clear. The closures can be raised in next week's debate, but it would not be correct to make a statement in advance.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: When the Leader of the House refers the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to the Secretary of State for Transport, will he emphasise that if British Rail decides to extend the line to Castleford and Normanton, that will be very welcome in an area which has been devastated by the loss of thousands of jobs in the coal mining industry?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I will convey the hon. Gentleman's remark to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. John P. Smith: Will the Leader of the House find time before Christmas for a debate on the worrying decision by the Department of Education and Science to move the National Environmental Research Council from Barry Dock to an inferior location? That will result in the loss not only of many jobs but of a centre of excellence which has directly contributed to Britain's world lead in discoveries relating to the depletion of the ozone layer and to North sea pollution.
Mr. MacGregor: I think that that is a matter for the Natural Environment Research Council. I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend, but I do not think that I can promise a debate in Government time on that matter.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I wonder if the Leader of the House can help me as you, Mr. Speaker, were unable to help me the other day when we had an announcement on the opting out of hospitals. Many hon. Members, with hospitals in our constituencies that had been given permission for trust status, were unable to ask the Secretary of State about those matters. Could the Leader of the House find time in the days available before Christmas for a debate on that subject? Otherwise, the whole question of losing many hospitals from the health service cannot be debated until mid or late January, when it will be too late to do anything about it.
Mr. MacGregor: It is not a question of hospitals being lost to the national health service or opting out of the service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made that clear in answer to the private notice question earlier this week. It is important that misleading statements of that sort should not be made. We were endeavouring to find the best and most convenient way for the House to ask questions of my right hon. Friend on the subject. I cannot promise a debate on the subject, but there are opportunities available to hon. Members to ask questions about particular hospitals.
Mr. Max Madden: May I warn the Leader of the House that hot air from Henley will not be enough to save the Government from the poll tax revolt? May I assure him that all Opposition Members, and I suspect many Conservative Members, would be prepared to sit up all night every night for as long as it takes to abolish the poll tax and to replace it with a fair rates system, linked to the ability to pay, with generous relief for the poorest in our community? When will he have the guts to come forward with such legislation, on behalf of the Government?
Mr. MacGregor: That is rather ridiculous, because we had a full debate on the subject yesterday. Moreover, I suspect that the idea of staying up night after night for all-night sessions and not going to bed will not appeal to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John McAllion: Will the Leader of the House try to understand that his previous answer about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was wholly unsatisfactory, and will be neither understood nor

465
forgiven in Scotland? I assure him that there is no problem in finding Opposition Members who are prepared to serve on that Select Committee. Will he therefore concede that it is desertion of parliamentary duty by Conservative Back Bench Members which has led directly to the disgraceful situation in which the Scottish Office, with an annual budget of £11,000 million, is the only major Department of state which is not subject to scrutiny by the Select Committee procedure in this place.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already made the position clear on that matter, and I have also made it clear that there are many opportunities to probe Scottish matters in the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Now that the Leader of the House has made a statement about Members of Parliament having a three-week holiday, what is he going to do and when will he make a statement about staff in the Refreshment Department in the Houses of Parliament, who are being called upon to work on Christmas Eve and on New Year's Eve, at single-time payments of £3·50 per hour? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why? Who for?"] That is the situation for people who work here, when Members of Parliament, including the right hon. Gentleman's Tory friends, will be sunning themselves in the Caribbean and other places. Is this what he means by a classless society? Why does he not treat them right?
Mr. MacGregor: Those were irrelevant and inaccurate remarks. The point that the hon. Gentleman was raising is a matter for the chairman of the relevant committee—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I think. I think that he has answered questions on this matter in the House, and I shall draw those remarks to his attention.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House think again about early-day motion 161?
[That this House notes the encouraging tone of the Prime Minister's reported remarks in the Mail on Sunday on 2nd December, relating to the introduction of more sensible hours and conditions for the House of Commons; and calls upon the Lord President of the Council to bring forward, after due consultation, proposals to effect such a change.]
It has been signed by hon. Members from all parties in the House. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made encouraging and sympathetic noises on the matter. Will he tell the House how we may best process our views, and give him the views of all parties so that we can drag this place into the 20th century while there are 10 years of it left?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I am happy to consider ways in which proposals might be taken forward. Obviously one of the key ways is through the Procedure Committee. I am happy to consider this matter, and perhaps discuss it more widely in the House, but I repeat that the co-operation of all hon. Members is required if any changes are to come about. The kind of remarks we heard earlier, urging all night sittings on one issue, illustrate some of the difficulties that we face.
Ms. Harriet Harman: May I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) for a review of the hours that the House sits? Does he recognise that night sittings are a deterrent to
466
women coming into the House, and that few hon. Members would claim to be at their best after 2 o'clock in the morning? We are heading towards the 21st century with a House of Commons which is stuck in the 17th century. Should we not have businesslike hours, so that we can operate effectively instead of operating like a gentlemen's club?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already expressed my willingness to consider the matter. I suggest that, if the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who is sitting on the left of the hon. Lady, will not have a word with her about it, she should perhaps have a word with him.
Miss Joan Lestor: May I remind the Leader of the House that he promised two weeks ago to send his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary a question of mine about a timetable for the debate on the ratification of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child? To date, I have received no reply. May I repeat my request for the matter to be discussed in the House as soon as possible? If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to redeem himself in the eyes of the children of this country, will he also take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I will look into it again.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I point out to the Leader of the House that Monday's private business concerns the revival motion for the Kings Cross Railways Bill? The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is generally accepted in the House that the private Bill procedure has been entirely discredited, and is inappropriate for the discussion of important matters such as the location of an international station in London.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his predecessor gave us a fairly clear indication that the necessary primary legislation would come before the House so that we could change the procedure? There was nothing about that in the Queen's Speech. Can he give us any idea whether we shall be able to discuss such legislation during the current Session? Perhaps if we are running out of business and there is to be a spring election, we shall not be able to do so until the new Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what work is in progress?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree that some matters relating to the private Bill procedure need to be examined, and believe that action needs to be taken. I must tell the hon. Gentleman in all frankness that I think it unlikely that primary legislation will be possible in the current Session, but I hope that some recommendations can be dealt with without the need for such legislation; I understand the concern felt by many hon. Members.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: May we have a debate next week on an aspect of the economy to which the Government have paid scant regard—the way in which landlords are exploiting the homeless? One landlord in north Birmingham is renting out eight rooms in a house, charging £126 per week per room, and the Department of Social Security is paying £116 per week. That is exploiting both the taxpayer and homeless people. I cannot understand why the public money involved cannot be converted into capital assets so that homes can be built for people to rent.
Mr. MacGregor: In view of the need for us to get on with today's important debate, and also the next statment, I do not wish to become involved in the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I can tell him that I do not think that we shall have an opportunity to debate them next week.
Mr. Jimmy Wray rose——
Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Gentleman here when I said that I would call those hon. Members who were standing?
Mr. Wray: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Then of course I will call him.
Mr. Wray: I was beginning to think that you had forgotten my name, Mr. Speaker. You have not called me for some time.
Mr. Speaker: I did not see the hon. Gentleman rise when I said that I would call hon. Members who had been rising. As I have said, of course I will call him if I have made a mistake.
Mr. Wray: Will the Leader of the House summon the Prime Minister to our next sitting and ask him to give us his definition of a classless society? My constituents are finding it very difficult to understand the Prime Minister. During his term at the Treasury, 90,000 people lost their jobs, 22,000 businesses went bankrupt and 27,000 people's houses were repossessed——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have been here——
Mr. Skinner: This is a very important question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I asked hon. Members specifically to relate their questions to next week's business, and not to make constituency points. I do not think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) can have been present to hear me say that.
Mr. Wray: My question does relate to next week's business, Mr. Speaker—I should like issues that I have raised to be on the agenda. People have had their child benefit frozen for the past three years. If the Prime Minister says that he believes in a classless society, let us hear his definition.
Mr. MacGregor: I believe that there will be an opportunity to debate these matters tomorrow, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be here to make his points.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked about tomorrow in his opening remarks. I am happy to point out to him that since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been in government, the work force in employment has risen by more than 3·6 million and, in the period for which figures were last available, 1,700 net new businesses were being opened each week.

Gulf Hostages
4.25 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the hostages in Iraq and Kuwait.
President Saddam Hussein has today sent a letter to the Iraqi National Assembly requesting that the Assembly
"allow all foreigners on whom restrictions were placed to enjoy the freedom of travel and to lift these restrictions".
This appears to mean that all foreign hostages in both Iraq and Kuwait will, once the Assembly has given its approval, be free to leave.
The Government welcome this implementation of one of the Security Council's requirements. We have throughout been pressing for the release of all hostages. We are delighted for all the hostages and their families. They have suffered with great dignity and courage over the past weeks and months. We are in close contact with our embassy in Baghdad over the practical arrangements for the departure of all British citizens trapped in Iraq and Kuwait. The ambassador is actively seeking early clarification from the Iraqi authorities. We will then do everything in our power to help those concerned get home as soon as practicable.
Saddam Hussein should now implement in full the United Nations resolutions, which means withdrawing unconditionally from Kuwait and allowing the legitimate Government to return to that country.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the Foreign Secretary for responding to our request for a statement on this matter. We express satisfaction at the decision to release the hostages who, of course, should never have been detained in the first place. We share the rejoicing of the hostages' families that their ordeal will soon be over and that they will be reunited with their loved ones. We greatly welcome the news, not simply for its human implications but for what it may signify.
This is the first positive response by Iraq to any of the United Nations Security Council resolutions—namely, No. 664. Since the inhumane purpose of holding the hostages was to use them as human shields in the event of war, this decision may carry important implications for Iraqi policy. It suggests that the talks between the United States Administration and the Iraqi regime could have a chance of bearing fruit. Taken with the report that the United States may now join the other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council in advocating an international conference on the middle east, it signals the possibility of a transformation for the good of the agonising situation in the region.
It is clear evidence that sanctions are working, and that they should be given a chance to work further to bring about, if possible, the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait by peaceful means. The United Nations has been and continues to be steadfast on this issue, and a great prize may be available to reward that steadfastness. We remain absolute in our support for the United Nations.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and for welcoming the news.
Mr. David Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the news is correct, as we hope it is, it is very welcome? Even in this moment of welcome, will he not

469
forget the other hostages—I am sure that he would not do so—who have been held in Beirut for much too long, and who should be released as soon as possible? They should have been released long ago. Will he reassure us that despite this, and even with the news of the international conference on long-term security in the middle east, nothing will detract from the determination of the nations of the world to fulfil the United Nations' resolution to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait not only unconditionally and completely but immediately?
Mr. Hurd: I confirm the last point that my right hon. Friend made. I cannot possibly predict how long it will take to carry through what President Saddam Hussein has asked the Iraqi Assembly to consider and to do. I gather that the Assembly is meeting tomorrow. We have many people involved. There are 440 British nationals in hiding in Kuwait. I hope very much that they are covered. We have 355 British nationals at liberty in Iraq and a further 342 detained at strategic sites—about 1,150 all told. The references that have been made to the international conference relate to reports of discussions in the Security Council, particularly between the United States and several non-aligned delegations. The British Government have long felt the need for an international Arab-Israel conference as a way of carrying that forward. It is a little too soon to say whether that possibility has been brought closer. I would advise the House to be a bit cautious.
Sir David Steel: Will the Foreign Secretary ascertain whether the statement to those who have successfully evaded capture in Kuwait and that they will be free to leave without intimidation? On the wider issue, does he agree that, although there is naturally rejoicing for the hostages and their relatives, there should be no votes of thanks to Saddam Hussein for undoing something that he should not have done in the first place? He must be hoping that, by this manoeuvre, international resolve may weaken. It would be a terrible indictment of the House or of anybody else if we were simply to say, "Our citizens are free, therefore we can forget about Kuwait." Will he reaffirm that we shall remain resolute on the wider issue?
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman's first point, about the position of our people who are in hiding in Kuwait, is one of the main points that our ambassador is trying to clear up with the Iraqis. The right E.on. Gentleman is entirely right on his second point. Three main requirements were laid down not by us or by the President of the United States but by the Security Council of the United Nations—the unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the restoration of the Kuwaiti Government and the freeing of all hostages. If the third of the requirements is carried through, that is welcome news, but it does not detract in the least from the importance of the others.
Dr. Michael Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we welcome the statement from Baghdad today, we should not forget that the hostages should never have been taken in the first place? The fact that they have been released does not make Saddam Hussein a hero.
Mr. Hurd: No, indeed. His policy has been entirely wrong. I hope that today's announcement means that President Saddam Hussein realises that it has also been a mistake.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that in the Palace of Westminster at the moment are 12 women whose husbands are held hostage in Kuwait or in Iraq? They are determined to make their way to Baghdad to obtain the release of their husbands. In the light of the statement that we have heard today, would it be appropriate for a Minister to meet them to give them counsel and advice in this new situation?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell me of this, and I am glad to say that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, in conjunction with him, will gladly meet those ladies. I hope that their journey may no longer prove to be necessary.
Mr. Robert Hayward: In welcoming the announcement that apparently has been made today, may I echo my right hon. Friend's word of caution? Will he clarify whether a clear indication has been given of the timing of the release of the hostages, whether they are part of the human shield or whether, as was said previously, they are still in hiding?
Mr. Hurd: In his letter to the National Assembly of Iraq, President Saddam Hussein refers to the fact that he had earlier considered a different timing and concentrating on Christmas and the new year. The implication, but not the clear statement, is that he is now talking of immediate release. But that is an implication. It must be cleared up. as must the crucial question whether all the British people, whatever their circumstances and whether they are in Iraq or Kuwait, are covered by the announcement.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, having spent three hours with Saddam Hussein and his Cabinet last week trying to persuade him to do the very thing that he has now done, including the form of words "freedom of movement" for every resident and an amnesty in Kuwait, I strongly welcome what has happened? However, is it not important now that some of the loose talk from Washington and from Ministers about toppling Saddam Hussein, about demilitarising Iraq by force and about bringing him to trial as a war criminal should be abandoned? There are no United Nations resolutions that encompass that in any way. The path is now open. Saddam Hussein's compliance with the resolution on Kuwait, which I also put to him, would be accelerated if he could be persuaded that he would not be attacked whatever he did.
The question of disputed territory, on which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has touched, should be dealt with by arbitration, and the compliance by Israel with resolution 242 and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the Lebanon are part of a long-term peace process. The lives have been saved——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to remind him that there will be a debate on this subject next Tuesday.[Interruption.] Well, there is great pressure on subsequent business. We should confine our questions to the Foreign Secretary today to the immediate issue and not deal with wider issues.
Mr. Benn: I respect your judgment, Mr. Speaker. However, you will recall that I asked that there should be a clear Government statement before Tuesday on the matters that I have tried to raise. Otherwise, we shall not know on Tuesday whether we agree with the Government's line.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman asked in business questions for a further full and authoritative statement; he will get that on Tuesday. I want to refer him to what the Prime Minister has said, to what I have said and to what Secretary Baker has said—that, if President Saddam Hussein does not comply in full with the Security Council resolutions, he will be forced to do so. If he does comply, he will not be attacked.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not it a fact that Saddam Hussein rounded up two Britons in Kuwait yesterday for use as human shields? Is not it also a fact that his dearest wish is to establish some linkage between his invasion of Kuwait and the settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem? Will my right hon. Friend stand against any such linkage?
Mr. Hurd: I cannot confirm my hon. and learned Friend's first point, but I will look into it and let him know whether our information confirms it.
On the second point, President Saddam Hussein has no particular standing as regards the general problems of the middle east or the Arab-Israel question. We have all been trying for many years—many people tried long before me—to achieve a just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute. There is no reason why we should stop doing that because of the aggression. However, as I have often explained to the House, I do not see, in practical terms, any prospect of useful initiatives on that subject as long as Saddam Hussein remains the aggressor in possession of Kuwait.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the second most important aspect of the statement—the first, obviously, being the release of hostages—is the fact that Saddam Hussein is starting to comply with the United Nations resolutions? Those hon. Members who are concerned about resolving the issue of the Palestinians and the Israelis should understand that the sooner all states begin to comply with United Nations resolutions the more likelihood there is of resolving the Palestinian question.
The Secretary of State was correct. Today's statement on the possible change in United States policy is intended to ensure that the United States does not use its veto in the Security Council. Will he ensure that our ambassador encourages the United States to accept, for the first time ever, a statement in a resolution that calls for the convening of an international peace conference?
Mr. Hurd: We are very anxious that this aspect of the Security Council's discussions should be carried forward without the dissent and upset that go with a United States veto—or with any veto. I confirm that to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir David Price: Would my right hon. Friend clarify the meaning of the word "hostage" in his statement? Does it include all the British subjects who were working on contract in Iraq and in Kuwait? I have in mind
472
especially the British service men who were on contract to the Kuwait armed forces. Are they covered by this welcome statement?
Mr. Hurd: The word used by President Saddam Hussein is "foreigners". He does not distinguish between one kind or another. We are trying to clear up as soon as possible the exact scope of the announcement. Obviously, we shall be pressing that it cover all British citizens and all foreigners living in Iraq and Kuwait and wishing to leave.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of my colleagues I welcome the statement, particularly as President Saddam Hussein kept his word on the release of the Mivan workers when they completed their contract. I hope that his word now given will be speedily fulfilled, and ask him to bear in mind the fact that, in our understanding, a guest is free to move around in the house or in the country. If there are gatecrashers at a party and they do not quietly withdraw when requested to do so, they would be expelled from the country or the house that they were occupying.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this welcome announcement totally vindicates the British Government's stand in refusing to treat with hostage takers and rather endorses the view that we should adopt an uncompromising attitude to those who would seek to infringe human rights and invade sovereign integrity?
Mr. Hurd: I think the whole House would be very pleased if we could move from a situation in which a certain number of hostages—a few dozen here and a few dozen there—are doled out to eminent visitors at the whim of President Saddam Hussein, to the situation for which we have been pressing, in which all hostages are released.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to the subsequent business before the House. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate, so I shall take three more questions from each side. I bear in mind the fact that we will have a debate on this matter on Tuesday.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary of the view that the message should go out from the international community loud and clear that the totally unprovoked aggression which occurred on 2 August must come to an end? We must remember, of course, that the people in Kuwait are also hostages to the criminal and terrorist regime of the past few months. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that many Opposition Members opposed the Tory action in 1956, when the Government collaborated with France and Israel against Egypt, and those of us who demonstrated against that totally unjustified aggression take the view that, to be logical, we must totally oppose what happened on 2 August and insist that Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has always been consistent in his belief that on this occasion the Security Council resolution should be fully complied with.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the hostages and their relatives

473
who have suffered a period of great stress will be delighted at the statement. Without waiting for further details from Baghdad, will he make arrangements for planes to be available to take all the hostages back home to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hurd: We are looking into that matter. Recently, the Iraqis have insisted that people leaving should leave by Iraq Airways. One of the points that we need to establish quickly is whether that will remain their requirement or whether it would be possible for us to mobilise and send aircraft to carry people home.
Ms. Clare Short: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to say as much as he can about this welcome news and the suggestion that the Americans will support a middle east peace conference? Is this part of a peace package? When, as I presume, the Prime Minister meets Mr. Shamir later today, will he say to him that there can be no double standards in the middle east, that just as Saddam Hussein must withdraw from Kuwait, so must Israel withdraw from the occupied territories, and that the way to long-term peace and disarmament in the middle east is the settlement of the Palestinian issue?
Mr. Hurd: I would discourage the hon. Lady from linking those matters. That is why I spoke rather cautiously about the reports of an international conference. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is seeing Mr. Shamir at this time. I am sure that he will set out for the Israeli Prime Minister the efforts that we are making—it is not a matter of dissent between the parties —to bring about a just settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the news seems to be helpful, but that it hardly gives rise to optimism in the face of the previous behaviour of Saddam Hussein— Can he reassure the House that we will maintain all pressure through diplomatic channels to ascertain the timing of the release and to press for as speedy a release as possible? That is crucial, for political and humanitarian reasons.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. John Cartwright: In welcoming the Foreign Secretary's statement, may I ask him whether he will once again press the Iraqi authorities to allow the two remaining diplomats to the British embassy in Kuwait City to resume their proper duties so that they can assist in what we hope will be the repatriation of the 440 British subjects still in hiding in Kuwait?
Mr. Hurd: Yes. Mr. Michael Weston and Mr. Banks have persevered in circumstances of growing difficulty precisely because it was their wish, as well as mine, that they should continue to be able to give some help—not as much as they would like—to the British citizens in Kuwait. I am sure that they will want to continue that.
Mr. Peter Viggers: While sanctions no doubt play their part, does my right hon. Friend agree that the threat of force was no doubt the critical element in the decision? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men of our armed forces and their families who have been under considerable stress for their part in what is undoubtedly a sacrifice for all concerned?
Mr. Hurd: I gladly join in that tribute. The Security Council resolution last week and the knowledge that it has brought home to Baghdad—that the military option is not a bluff and that, if Saddam Hussein does not leave Kuwait in peace, he will be forced out—is the strongest of the peaceful pressures which can be brought to bear.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 6864/90, relating to a research programme in information technology, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B. —[Mr. Boswell.]
Mr. James Hill: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: No, please.
Mr. Hill: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I seldom raise points of order, but, after that statement, I must record the tragic death of one of my constituents who was held as a shield. He died of a heart attack in Iraq. There is still no knowledge of where he died. When we talk about the promises made by Saddam Hussein, we must not forget the terrible tragedy that he has inflicted on many British citizens.
Mr. Speaker: I have allowed the hon. Member to make that comment, in view of the sad occurrence that he mentioned.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. It was not a point of order.
Mr. Hoyle: It is very important.
Mr. Speaker: Everything is important.
Mr. Hoyle: I know that you are irritated.
Mr. Speaker: I am not irritated at all. Equally important are the 30 hon. Members who wish to participate in the next debate. Is the hon. Member's point of order more important than them?
Mr. Hoyle: I do not rise to my feet on a point of order very often—and yes, it is more important. At 12 noon today, one of my constituents heard that her husband was coming home. She heard that from the Iraqi ambassador himself. Although we have had the statement from the Foreign Secretary, can everything possible be done to get those people home to their families before Christmas? That is a very important point of order.
Mr. Speaker: It is of course very important.

European Community (Developments)
[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 5th December ( House of Commons Paper No. 77-i); European Community Documents Nos. 5749/90 and 9258/90 on implementation of the Single Market.]
Mr. Speaker: I must now make a rather sad statement. In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the next debate, I shall have to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
4.48 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of—

(a) developments in the European Community, in particular in view of the forthcoming European Council in Rome on 14th–15th December, with reference also to the White Paper on Developments in the European Community January-June 1990 (Cm. 1234); and

(b) European Community Document No. 9431/90, the European Commission's opinion on the calling of the Inter-Governmental Conference on Political Union which was issued in accordance with Article 236 of the Treaty.

The main purpose of the debate is to look forward to the summit, the meeting of the European Council, at the end of next week and to the start of the two intergovernmental conferences that will begin on Saturday 15 December, one of them on economic and monetary union, in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take the lead, and the other on institutional change in the Community, in which I will take the lead.
I do not intend to speak about economic and monetary union today, because I understand that there will be a debate on it before long. I do not believe that there will be detailed discussion of the subject at the summit at the end of next week. There has been no change in the Government's policy on the matter. I should like a little later to say something about the other intergovernmental conference on institutional change, sometimes called political union.
I will run quickly through what I think will be the main items on the agenda of the European Council. The Prime Minister and I will be carrying to that Council the central message from this Government and country that we want and intend to play a full, central and positive part in all debates on the future of the Community to which we belong. We want to preserve and promote the national interest and to build an open, confident, outward-looking European Community with influence in the world.
Mr. Christopher Gill rose——
Mr. Hurd: I will make a little progress with my speech before giving way.
I wish to add a word to our continental partners about recent events in this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) represented this country at 31 European summits, and not many among those present at Rome next week will be able to remember any other Prime Minister speaking for Britain. My right hon. Friend had her own manner of dealing with Community issues—[Interruption.]—which was often
476
controversial, often effective and always distinctive. I know for certain that many who crossed swords with her on those occasions are feeling sad now that she is no longer there.
It would be a mistake for anyone to suppose that, because the leader of the Government has changed, the policy will be reversed. For the last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister and I have, with other colleagues, worked out and elaborated the policies for Britain in the Community which we believe to be in the national interest as well as in the interests of Europe.
Of course, the style will change—because the choice of words will change; those are personal things—but we shall enter the IGCs, the inter-governmental conferences, intending to make a success of both of them, equipped with our ideas for bringing about that success, and they will still be the main means by which, in the next year or so, the Community will evolve.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has gone, that may already be happening—that other Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers know that they will have to come out and insist on more detail, when previously they could rely on her to do it?
Mr. Hurd: That may well be true. The present Prime Minister will be no less energetic in advancing Britain's ideas, as he was as Chancellor of the Exchequer. His views will not change because he has been promoted, and my views will not change because I have not been promoted.
I would hate there to be any misunderstanding on that point. If our partners go to Rome expecting consistency and continuity in British policy, they will not be disappointed—continuity in the line we take and consistency in our ultimate objectives. The interests of this nation and of the House are paramount, and our policy will be based on a clear appreciation of those interests.
I come to what I know will be the main items before the summit. I shall not say much about the Gulf, except that it is certain that the Community, the summit, will need to have a full discussion on the Gulf. The House will have an opportunity next week to go into the substance of the matter, and hon. Members had an exchange today about the hostages.
It is clear from my discussions at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday that the whole Community, all 12, is united behind the Security Council resolutions, including the last one for which Britain and France voted in New York last week, No. 678, authorising the use of force. I am sure that the European summit will want to make that point clear in Rome at the end of next week.
Another item that will be prominent is the position of the Soviet Union and the extent to which the Community should help that country. We see President Gorbachev and his colleagues striving now—it is not an exaggeration—to save the Soviet Union. In part, they are still using the traditional apparatus of command, and in part they are bringing forward reforms, both political and economic.
I do not think we should pretend that our sympathy and help will be decisive. We cannot solve the problems of the republics and their relationship with Moscow. We cannot ourselves rescue from disintegration the command economy to which the Soviet Union was accustomed. We

477
cannot ourselves replace that command economy with a lively free market. Those are all things that they must work out for themselves.
If we can give useful help—I underline the word "useful"—it is in our interest to do so, because it is not in our interest that the Soviet Union should dissolve into rival warring republics or lapse back into some form of dangerous tyranny. But untargeted help would not have a great impact. Indeed, it might even help to prop up the crumbling structures.
Mr. Bernie Grant rose——
Mr. Hurd: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
What we must try to do—in what Britain and the Community does—is help the Russians to mobilise their own huge resources. That means that the Community should agree practical measures of technical assistance to help provide western know-how in key sectors of the economy. One obvious example is energy, about which the Dutch Prime Minister, Mr. Lubbers, put forward an interesting plan which I hope the summit will help to carry forward.
We want to help create an active private sector in the Soviet Union, and in the long run that country will need private sector investment from the west. But that requires a degree of certainty and confidence—a framework within which investors can work—and that is why we are pressing the Commission to bring forward ideas in that sphere.
The most pressing need is on the food side. The best available evidence we have suggests that, after a record grain harvest, there exists sufficient food for all. It exists and it is there, but problems of hoarding and distribution prevent it from getting to the places where there are shortages. The full picture is far from clear. Anecdotal evidence contradicts itself to some extent, and I hope that the summit will receive—we have asked for it—a clear and expert assessment of identifiable needs and of ways in which the Community could respond usefully.
Mr. Grant: It is rumoured that the Soviet Union has tremendous gold reserves and billions of dollars in western banks. Is it reasonable for the European Community to give food and monetary aid to the Soviet Union when it already has substantial sums of money and, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, food, when there are starving people in third world countries who could use that money and aid?
Mr. Hurd: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, when people are starving, it is right that humanitarian aid should be given. That applies in the horn of Africa and in the Soviet Union—provided that the food will reach the people in need, and that is a big proviso.
As for the bigger questions of financial help—balance of payments help and so on—I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, and I was coming to that point. I do not think it is sensible to rush into giving that kind of help, at least not without a proper assessment, not just by the European Commission but by the International Monetary Fund—something with which African countries are familiar. One must respect the position of the Soviet Union, its history and its sensitivities, but I believe that there is a clear distinction between what we can do in terms of food and
478
technical assistance—the case for technical assistance is overwhelming—and the longer-term, larger-scale balance of payments help, which must be carefully considered.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Given the success of the Red Cross in distributing German supplies in the Soviet Union, might there be a case for having an arrangement to encourage British transportation to distribute Russian food?
Mr. Hurd: There might be. The question of the distribution of food is crucial, and when I announced the British know-how fund for the Soviet Union a few weeks ago, I listed food distribution as an area in which Britain could be of particular help, and projects of that type can be among the first calls on the know-how fund.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity, following the welcome resignation of General Ershad as President of Bangladesh, to make clear to the Bangladesh military that, if it was unwise enough to stage a coup d'etat at this time in an effort to stop free and fair elections being held in Bangladesh——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.
Mr. Madden: —to elect a president and parliament that the British Government and the international community——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not persist in ignoring the Chair. I fail to see what relevance his intervention has to the matter before us.
Mr. Hurd: I cannot reward the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for that. I would rather prepare and choose my words carefully on the subject of Bangledesh before discussing it.
I shall move on to a related issue that will certainly be on the summit's agenda, eastern Europe as a whole——
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop rose——
Mr. Hurd: I shall proceed for a little longer, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes to intervene.
The countries of eastern Europe rely to a substantial extent on the Community and the western world for help in bringing forward their reforms. Britain, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, took the lead in encouraging reform in eastern Europe and stimulating international support for it. We recognise that the new democracies need trade as much as aid. That is why we have proposed, and the Community has endorsed, association agreements between the Community and Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. They will provide a framework for the sort of wide-ranging co-operation we want, with the eventual goals of free trade arrangements and a clear link with the Community.
The newly democratic countries face a serious economic problem as a result of the Gulf crisis and the rise in oil price. That subject is being, and will need to be, discussed. Without going into it in detail, I would simply say that we are clear that those new, pressing needs of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other such countries cannot be tackled simply by using the Community's resources. It will be necessary to bring in the resources of the entire Group of 24, including the United

479
States, Canada and Japan. I think we should also bring in the resources of some of the Gulf countries which benefited substantially from the same process.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It is important for my right hon. Friend to clarify one aspect of what he said about Government policy. Sustaining President Gorbachev in keeping the USSR cohesive is one thing, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that that does not prejudice the position of the three Baltic republics, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the overrunning of which by Soviet Russia the United Kingdom has never recognised as an extension of Soviet territory to include those republics? We must not betray them merely because there are other difficulties within the Soviet Union.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right——
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I suppose all that is in order.
Mr. Hurd: Of course it is in order, because I have been talking about the Soviet Union. It is not for me to say, but I should have thought that it was naturally in order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hislop) is right—we have constantly made it clear to the Soviet Government that we regard the three Baltic republics as being in a different position, legally and historically, from the other republics of the Soviet Union.
The subject of the negotiations between the Community and the European Free Trade Association, and the enlargement of the Community may come up at the summit and is, anyway, of interest to the House. We believe that the Community should be open to new membership for those who satisfy the obligations of membership and to increased and more liberal trade with third world countries. At present, the EFTA countries are negotiating with us to extend the Community's internal market to encompass them, and we strongly support those negotiations because it is important that they should succeed. That may or may not lead eventually to full membership of the Community by the EFTA countries.
Dr. Norman A. Godman rose——
Mr. Hurd: I should like to get on.
We have received an application from one of the EFTA countries, Austria. As the decade goes on, there may well be other applications for full membership from some of the newly democratic countries of central and eastern Europe that I mentioned. If so, the association agreements to which I referred, which we strongly support, will be seen as a bridge to full membership. Negotiations on when and how full membership of those countries can be achieved will be necessary. We must not say to countries that apply, "You may be European and democratic and have a free market, but we think that 12 is a good number, so goodbye."
Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be reviewing priorities for next week's talks. In that regard, what can he tell the House today about the Community's posture on the Uruguay round negotiations? Is he aware of the deep
480
concern about that issue in New Zealand, Australia and many of the poorest developing Commonwealth countries?
Mr. Hurd: Indeed: that was to be my next topic, which shows the wisdom of trying to make progress in a speech before giving way. It may be useful to discuss that subject at the European summit, although that depends slightly on what happens in the negotiations in Brussels in the next few days. Today, the Ministers are continuing the meeting in Brussels, but the position changes almost every hour.
Overnight, the Uruguayan chairman proposed that the five key subjects in the negotiations—agriculture, services, textiles, intellectual property and the general agreement on tariffs and trade rules—should be taken together. When I last touched base with Brussels, it was not clear whether that proposal would go forward or talks had broken down or been suspended. The crisis was triggered by the American rejection of the Uruguayan chairman's approach, because the Americans were insisting on separate Community concessions on agriculture first. Today, the Community has indicated that it is willing to be flexible on that issue, but the Americans also need to make concessions, particularly on services.
The aim of GATT is that everyone should gain, which will require everyone making concessions in order to achieve the desired overall gain. There is a sense of crisis—which may have been necessary to jolt people out of their entrenched positions. I agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) that there now has to be genuine negotiation.
Another item on the summit's agenda will be the Commission's report on progress towards a single market. I hope that the House will not lose sight of what has been, and continues to be for this country, one of the main objectives of the Community over recent years—we are in sight of a single market of 340 million people, a unique achievement in history. It will be dynamic because, as the Scrutiny Committee well knows, beneath the simplicity of abolishing the trade barriers lies a complex programme of legislation.
The Common Market programme is about two thirds complete, and the summit will review progress on the basis of a report from President Delors. Britain will have to set the priorities for the next phase and ensure that enforcement of measures already agreed is adequate. The key sectors where we want to see quick progress include public procurement, financial services and liberalisation of transport.
The intergovernmental conference on institutional reform is called political union, although that is a somewhat misleading phrase. During recent weeks, our concern has been to ensure that there will be no attempt at the second summit in Rome at the end of next week to pre-empt that conference by laying down what it should or should not decide before it has even met. We have been anxious to avoid a repetition of what occurred at the first Rome summit in October in relation to economic and monetary union. I was reasonably encouraged by the discussions that we had in the Foreign Affairs Council—[Interruption.] May I hold the attention of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for a few minutes longer?
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, when he said that he did

481
not want a repeat of the events of October, I was merely reflecting the fact that I agree with him? Having lost the then Prime Minister, we certainly do not want to lose the present one.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman was not reflecting—he was chatting, which put me off my stride. I am grateful that he has got his not particularly pertinent point off his chest.
I was reasonably encouraged by the discussion on the subject at the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday. It seemed that a genuine effort was being made for the summit to consider the matter on the basis of the different opinions so far expressed, rather than try to create, on Friday and Saturday morning, a mandate for a conference that starts on Saturday afternoon. I hope that there will be no last-minute surprises on that front. We will go into the intergovernmental conference with our ideas and proposals. Others will put forward their ideas, which we do not find convincing.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the basic problems is that there is no clear definition of the principle of subsidiarity or of how it can be implemented practically as an ever wider range of measures comes from the Commission? So will one of the ideas that my right hon. Friend takes forward be a clear definition and method of enforcement of this principle?
Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall come to his point shortly.
We will put forward our ideas and others will put forward ideas that we do not find convincing—that is the nature of discussion in the Community and in this House. We are not persuaded by the case that some people make for an extension of the competence of the Commission, or of the case for the wholesale extension of qualified majority voting, or of the case for adding again to the legislative powers of the European Parliament. To make any of these changes, a convincing case would be necessary, but it has not been made.
We do not see the Community to which we belong as a river or glacier that moves inexorably in a preordained direction. That is not how it works or how it should work. The Community evolves, but that evolution takes place by working out what its needs are, not by some inevitable law of gravity or some movement in the stars. That means that we should not say "never" to any change in these matters. What we can say and what we have been saying under the last Prime Minister and under the present one is that we are not persuaded of the case for such changes.
Because we are not persuaded of the case for a change in the three respects that I have mentioned, that does not mean that our stance in this conference will be negative.
Mr. Gill: I invite my right hon. Friend to comment on subsidiarity, which no doubt will form part of the conference agenda. Will he bear in mind when discussing it how imperfectly the principle of subsidiarity is applied even in our country? Many Members of this House would like to think that the powers ceded to the higher authority will be agreed by the lower tier rather than the other way round. We do not want crumbs from the Commission's table.
Mr. Hurd: Of course, my hon. Friend's second point is right. A large part of discussion within the Community is about whether it is sensible for nation states which have
482
their powers to yield competence in certain spheres. It should not be a question of the Community sitting on high and doling out powers to nation states; it is the other way around.
I move now from the areas of which we must say that we are not persuaded of the need for change to the areas about which we have specific and positive ideas. We want to make the Community more efficient and effective. Part of that means making sure that it operates only where it needs to. We want to improve enforcement and compliance—carrying out in practice what is talked about and agreed in principle. We want to strengthen the voice of Europe on the world stage, and we want to reinforce the democratic accountability of the Community.
Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that I have with me the draft statutes for the European central bank, supplied to me this afternoon by the Bank of England. They state:
"The statute—as the Treaty itself—will have the status of primary Community law and therefore any amendment to the statute would normally be subjected to the procedure applied to EEC Treaty changes."
Given the importance of democracy here and in Europe, would I be right in thinking that we will not accept that point?
Mr. Hurd: That is a matter for the Chancellor and for the debate that we shall have on economic and monetary union. As we do not accept the principle of the proposal illustrated in those statutes, I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will feel fairly robustly about what my hon. Friend has just said.
We want, as I have said, to make the Community more effective, operating only where it needs to but operating fairly and well where it does. We want to improve compliance with the rulings of the European Court. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) nodded when I made that point earlier. She will probably know that, at the end of last year, there were 80 outstanding judgments by the European Court against European member states, and that only one was against this country. We have an excellent record of compliance. We should like the conference to consider sanctions in cases of prolonged failure to comply. We want the Council to look at implementation of decisions by the Council through the passage of national legislation.
The Government are sometimes criticised for their record in social matters in the Community, but we are the only country to have implemented all Community directives on social matters. We are the only country to have carried through completely what we said we would do. That is a distinction that we must draw continually in the Community.
I am afraid that the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are increasingly seduced by declarations such as the social charter, and so are not watching what is happening and the extent to which other countries carry through what they say they are in favour of.
Two of my hon. Friends have asked me to comment on subsidiarity. We want the conference to determine whether this principle can be brought into the treaties in a useful way. That could be done if we can properly define subsidiarity. It would help the Community to decide before setting out what it should do whether it is necessary for it to do anything, or whether the subject concerned is best left to member states.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we recently held the conference of the Parliaments of the European Community? I quote from the preamble to its final declaration:
"While seeking to remodel the Community into a European Union on a federal basis".
The conference's idea of subsidiarity was that it comes from the top down; it was content to delegate powers downwards to sovereign states. We want sovereign states which might, perhaps, be prepared to delegate powers to European institutions—unlike the declaration that I have cited. With the best will in the world, we are not talking the same language as our European partners.
Mr. Hurd: In the IGC, we will discuss treaty changes that can be achieved only by unanimity. It will not be like a parliamentary debate, ending in a majority vote. I am setting out the sort of improvements in Community institutions that we think are sensible. We shall argue our case, others will argue theirs, and we shall see at the end how we get on. There is no question of the British Government agreeing to proposals that reflect the declaration that my hon. Friend has just quoted.
Mr. Ron Leighton rose——
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way for the last time.
Mr. Leighton: Will the principle of subsidiarity be spelt out clearly in the treaties, and will it be justiciable before the court?
Mr. Hurd: Those are the two very issues that the conference will have to tackle. We shall have to look for a way of spelling out subsidiarity in the treaty; then we need to find a way of enforcing it. It will not necessarily have to be enforced by the European Court of Justice: there are other ways of enforcing it. I am glad now that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he put his finger on two practical questions to which we shall have to find positive answers. If we cannot find them, we shall have had a useful debate but we will not have found a practical way of including the principle in the treaties.
We should like national Parliaments to work singly and together to improve their influence over the Council of Ministers. We would like the European Parliament to direct fresh energy not at increasing its legislative powers, but at strengthening financial accountability by reinforcing the role of the Budgetary Control Committee and the Court of Auditors. We hope that national Parliaments will be more effective in controlling the Council of Ministers, whereas the European Parliament would be more effective at doing what the House cannot do, which is monitoring and strengthening the financial accountability of the Commission.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: No. I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, and I have tried to meet what I know is his point.
Our third objective in the intergovernmental conference will be to strengthen the voice of the Community in the world. As the House knows, the Community already co-ordinates foreign policy by consensus. We think that that should continue and we have made modest but specific proposals for improving that co-ordination. We think that the conference should define more clearly
484
security questions, which are also dealt with by consensus. The Twelve have edged forward to discussing certain security questions, despite the reserve of the Irish, and those discussions can be defined and strengthened.
I shall give two examples of security questions which we think that the Twelve can reasonably consider. They can consider all that is carried forward from the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, the confidence building schemes, the conciliation of disputes and the conflict prevention centre. Those matters can rightly be co-ordinated in the Twelve, although they also need to be discussed with the United States and Canada. Another example is the export of arms and weapons technology, in which the Opposition are traditionally interested. Such subjects come under the heading of security questions which we think the Twelve can usefully consider.
Defence is a distinct matter. The collective guarantees under which we live in safety, the integrated command and the deployment of forces and weapons are regarded as a separate matter under the heading of defence. I see a clear need to build up the European pillar of the North Atlantic Alliance, and I think that that will be one of the main debates and needs of 1991. However, I do not think that the Twelve are the right instrument for that, although the Italians have ideas in this field. The Twelve will not be intimately concerned with defence as I have defined it.
The Western European Union is a more fitting instrument for building up the European pillar of the alliance. In the coming months, we hope to develop our ideas on that, not just at the intergovernmental conference but in the WEU and at the NATO review, which is a rejuvenating, a changing, of NATO to meet new circumstances.
I have tried to cover the main ideas which I foresee on the summit agenda. I have tried to give the House some fresh information about the line that we shall take in the intergovernmental conference on political union and the institution of the Community.
Mr. Skinner: Cotton wool.
Mr. Hurd: The Community and the House evolve by discussion and argument, and even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is anxious to take part in such debate. His participation in this debate has been almost continuous.
Mr. Skinner: I have listened to the Secretary of State for the last half hour. His background is that of a diplomat. He is supposed to be telling us about what will happen and about the Government's position at this international government conference. He has wrapped the whole thing in cotton wool and he does not have the guts to tell the House why. It is because some of his hon. Friends are against the Common Market and some, such as the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), are Euro-fanatics. By trying to placate both factions, the right hon. Gentleman tells us exactly nothing. That is his game; but he does not con me.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has been talking all the time, and I can therefore accuse him of not listening. Plainly, he has not listened to a word of my clear and distinctive speech about Government policy. I am delighted that I have been able to expose the hon. Gentleman in this way.

485
The policies which I have outlined and those which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will outline in the debate on economic and monetary union command overwhelming support in the House. Those positive ideas will preserve and advance the national interest by making a success of our membership of the Community.
5.24 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"condemns Her Majesty's Government for its neglect of British interests in the European Community and its failure to produce a coherent policy towards the Inter-Governmental Conferences due to be held next week.".
Anyone listening to the Secretary of State's placid not to say soporifc account of events in the Community would never think that that issue has caused such upheavals in the Government. It has cost them the resignation of six Cabinet Ministers in the past five years, including the deputy Prime Minister last month and the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago. I am not sure to what extent the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) would welcome the somewhat morbid obituary notice that the right hon. Gentleman has delivered on her. Regardless of the quaint remarks with which the right hon. Gentleman finished his speech, if the Government go on in the same way as before, more resignations may well be expected before they are done.
We really must hand it to the Foreign Secretary. Four weeks ago he spoke about the European Community in the debate on the Queen's Speech and said:
"One thing that has emerged clearly from our exchanges yesterday was that there was a great deal more light and sweetness on this side of the House than there was on the other side. Our view has been expressed with admirable clarity and coherence."—[Official Report, 8 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 152.]
Within five days of the Foreign Secretary saying that, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) tore the veil aside and showed that the Cabinet was a snakepit of dissension and backbiting on the issue of Europe. No one would have thought from the Foreign Secretary's speech today that in this area of policy the Government have been isolated time and again on the wrong side of the debate within the Community. The new Prime Minister has once again declared his opposition to the social charter.
Mr. Tony Favell rose——
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) should not intervene. If he had sensibly kept his mouth shut, he would now be with the Prime Minister and Mr. Shamir instead of on the tundra of the Back Benches.
Mr. Favell: Does the right hon. Gentleman have the support of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his approach to Europe?
Mr. Kaufman: I always have the idiosyncratic support of my hon. Friend on every matter to which I refer. I know the size of the majority of the hon. Member for Stockport. After the general election he will not be able to give support to anybody from Stockport.
The Government have been on the wrong side of every European Community debate. They have been on the wrong side of the debate on the social charter, on employment practices, and on carbon dioxide emissions,
486
on which the United Kingdom had to be given a special dispensation for a five-year delay. That was an issue on which the Government blew loud trumpets that turned out to be raspberries.
The style has now changed dramatically and the change was signalled by the new Prime Minister in one of a never-ending series of interviews that he gave during the Tory leadership campaign. The text and transcripts of those interviews provide a rich goldmine of quotational nuggets that will be used to our satisfaction and benefit for some time. In an interview with Brian Walden the new Prime Minister spoke approvingly of compromise within the Community, or what he called fudging things. Fudge is certainly on the menu today.
Under the previous Prime Minister, we and Europe knew exactly where we were. Ministers, led by her, went into meetings and conferences simply saying no to whatever was proposed. Now, there has been a dramatic reversal. From a policy of no, the Government have moved to a policy of no policy. We got the first remarkable example yesterday, when the Secretary of State for the Environment, having fought his leadership campaign on a manifesto of changing the poll tax, came to the House with the dramatic news that he had no policy on the matter, and was installing a suggestions box next to the letter board in the Members' Lobby. That is a mess that the new Government have created for themselves, and in which they now wallow uncomfortably.
The policy of no policy on the European Community is, however, a far graver matter, for it means that next week the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer go to Italy for three meetings crucial to the political, economic, industrial and social future of the country with next to nothing to say. Perhaps the new Prime Minister's approach was symbolised by what happened to his speech at the Altrincham and Sale Conservative party dinner last Thursday. The text of the speech got lost. Perhaps it was cleared away by sensible waitresses, along with the dirty crockery and the soiled serviettes. This is what he said:
"It means that we must put forward our own ideas for a liberal and open Community … That will be easier to achieve if our partners in the Community are convinced that we are whole-heartedly engaged with them in the great enterprise of building, shaping and developing Europe.
I want Britain to play a leadership role in that enterprise".
It is not clear what those words mean.
During the leadership election campaign, the Foreign Secretary proposed, as part of his platform, drafting a Cabinet paper on Europe, as if it were some revolutionary proposal, which I suppose that it was for this Government. He said:
"concern about Europe runs very high and I would like to see the publication, quite openly, of more of the information that would go to the Cabinet so the House and the public can be well informed of the choices facing the Government."
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way later, but I wish to deal with what the Foreign Secretary proposed, and what has come of his proposal, because that is important. What has become of the paper? Was it discussed at today's Cabinet meeting? It seems not because, according to The Guardian today, the Foreign Secretary, at the meeting of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday,

487
"hinted that the government had shelved its plan to issue a broad-brush policy paper on Europe before the Rome summit. Instead, it was concentrating on refining its proposals for the intergovernmental conference on political union, which would be launched then."
Today, The Times puts the situation more bleakly. It says:
"The government has delayed or shelved plans to produce a white paper … on Europe amid hints that a cabinet consensus may be harder to reach than expected. A senior"—
Mr. Oppenheim: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I shall in a moment, but I am quoting from The Times and one must not interrupt that. The Times says:
"A senior source"—
to our delight, no longer Mr. Bernard Ingham—
"said that the cabinet did not want such a paper at this time, and was uncertain that it would ever be produced."
Where are we on this? If the Cabinet is not even discussing the matter, if it has not got a paper, if it has no idea of what is to go before the intergovernmental conference next week, how can anybody else comment on the Government's policies? How can our partners in Europe respond? How can the House of Commons comment and how can the British people, who may be said to have some justified interest in the matter, comment?
Mr. Oppenheim: The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of having no policy on Europe. Perhaps he can enlighten the House by telling us whether the Opposition have a policy on a single currency. Are the Opposition in favour of a single currency, yes or no?
Mr. Kaufman: I shall come to those very matters.
Mr. Oppenheim: Yes or no?
Mr. Kaufman: I do not know which way the hon. Gentleman voted last week, but I had better advise him to stop asking for yes or no answers because I have some quotations from the new Prime Minister on the matter that do not add up to yes or no. I shall come to that.
The Labour party conference, two months ago, passed a detailed policy on political union and political progress. On economic and monetary union, our national executive will publish a detailed policy next week, which I shall gladly send to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), to whom reference has been made, is aware of that because he was the only person to vote against the policy.
Mr. Skinner: I should have been in a minority of two but the chair would not accept the Baghdad proxy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was in the Gulf.
Mr. Kaufman: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was not in the Gulf; he was in Mesopotamia. The Gulf is a bit further south-east. My right hon. Friend was carrying out his mission and was not able to vote.
Mr. Skinner: He did a good job.
Mr. Kaufman: He did a job. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover must be relieved and satisfied that he upheld that minority view in the national executive, but he has confirmed that the Labour party has a detailed policy
488
of economic and monetary union, on which only a tiny minority of the party has stated its reservations. That is completely different from the deep split in the Tory party.
The Foreign Secretary said this afternoon that the Government will go into the intergovernmental conference with their own ideas and proposals. Given what he said, you could have fooled me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Six months after signing up at Dublin to full union before the end of 1992—that is what the right hon. Member for Finchley, with the Foreign Secretary, did, and she did not deny that when asked about it in the Chamber—the Government have no idea about what they mean to do, apart from the farce of the hard ecu.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but when I have done that, I shall not give way again because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
Mr. Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Altrincham. That speech says:
"It doesn't mean that we have to accept a federal Europe: certainly not. There is no question of that."
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is fresh back from Rome where he voted in favour of a declaration containing an undertaking to seek to remodel the Community into a European union on a federal basis. We know that that is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government because we have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. Will the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) now tell us whether that is Labour policy?
Mr. Kaufman: I understand that the hon. Gentleman left early, so I am not sure about the basis of his comments. We also know that the Conservative delegation, if one can call it that, was split not just down the middle but into several fragments at the assizes.
We have the very great advantage, indeed the enticing prospect, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) hopes to catch Mr. Speaker's eye to wind up the debate for the Opposition. Having been there all the time, he will speak with great authority on the matter.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask about the document, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton will deal with it with his customary suavity and competence.
Mr. Cash rose——
Mr. Kaufman: No, I have explained what will happen with regard to that document.
There are some issues on which the Government's confusion has become even worse. For example, we thought that we knew roughly where the Government stood on defence—that is, that they were against a defence role for the Community. But now, suddenly, all that seems to be in the melting pot.
In Brussels, the Foreign Secretary was quoted as saying that there were now compelling arguments for much closer EC co-operation over defence and security. The correspondent from The Guardian in Brussels made a further report on the matter, in which he said:
"In a first sign of a softening in the Government's line on Europe since John Major became Prime Minister, the Foreign

489
Secretary, Douglas Hurd, signalled yesterday that Britain may support giving the European Community a formal role in foreign policy and security."
We had another variation of what the Foreign Secretary is proposing when he was questioned by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday. We had yet another variation today. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House with great clarity whether the Government support and advocate, or do not support and advocate, a defence role for the Community? If the right hon. Gentleman does not support and advocate a defence role, but does support and advocate a security role, will he explain the difference between the two, and will he then also explain how that fits in with our commitments to NATO?
Mr. Hurd: I said exactly the same in my press conference in Brussels and to the Select Committee. I do not believe that the 12 should have a defence role, and I draw a distinction between the defence role and security matters; a distinction that I explained in some detail 10 minutes ago.
Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman may have sought to explain it, but he did not explain it in a wa y that was clear to the House. He talked about co-operation on the Gulf and he reproved members of the Community for what he claimed to be their inadequate response to the Gulf crisis. Does the right hon. Gentleman see the Community co-ordinating a military response in the Gulf? Does he see it co-ordinating a naval blockade in the Gulf? Does he see it co-ordinating an air blockade in the Gulf? If so, what was he up to talking about the Community's response on Gulf issues? Hostages are clearly an important matter, but is that a security matter? We need to know what the Government mean by security as distinct from defence.
Those are important matters, on which the Government may come to the House with legislation at a future date and we need to know exactly what they propose. After all the right hon. Gentleman's statements in Brussels, his statement to the Select Committee and his further statement this afternoon, what he is proposing is not at all clear and could be dangerous.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke this afternoon, as he has on other occasions, about majority voting. But nobody has any clear idea where he, and therefore the Government, stands on majority voting. Speaking to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities on 25 July 1990 he said:
"Undoubtedly, this country has quite substantially gained from the Single European Act, in that many of the decisions leading to the Single Market are to be taken by qualified majority. We and the Commission would not be nearly so successful in demolishing protectionism in the Community had it not been for qualified majority voting, and that is a point I ought to make from the point of view of those who approach qualified majority voting with some suspicion."
That appears to me to be something of an encomium for qualified majority voting.
Three months later the right hon. Gentleman appeared to change his mind. In the debate on the Queen's Speech on 8 November, four weeks ago today, he said:
"We do not want … significantly extending qualified majority voting."
Does that mean more majority voting or not? What is the significance of the word "significantly"? Does he mean that
490
he is opposed to any more qualified majority voting, or that he is ready to see some more qualified majority voting? If so, in what areas?
That is an important issue for the political intergovernmental conference, yet there has not been a word of clarification today, just a repetition of the fuzzy words on the matter that the right hon. Gentleman has been saying all along, except, as I say, for his encomium for qualified majority voting at the House of Lords Select Committee three months ago. If he cannot sort out his own mind, how on earth will he make a clear, positive and useful contribution at the intergovernmental conference?
What about the issue of sovereignty? In his interview with Mr. Walden on 25 November, the new Prime Minister—not then the Prime Minister but about to become so—seemed very firm. He said:
"At the moment I can foresee no chance of pooling any more sovereignty."
He also said:
"I see no circumstances at the moment in which we could or would present legislation to the House of Commons to surrender more sovereignty."
That seemed pretty clear until one read it, when one saw that repeated phrase, "at the moment". That gave the Prime Minister a let-out should he decide to change his mind. The chances of his changing his mind seem quite strong.
In yet another campaign interview published two days later on 27 November in the Financial Times the Prime Minister said:
"I have no doubt that when we go through this conference"—
that is, the intergovernmental conference—
"it is possible to negotiate a treaty that will be acceptable to the House of Commons that will move Europe forward and keep it forward together."
What will there be a new treaty for if we are not going to sacrifice, as the right hon. Member for Finchley would put it, some sovereignty?
The Prime Minister acknowledged in that interview that a new treaty would have to come to the House, and a new treaty will mean, in the Prime Minister's own words, pooling more sovereignty; surrendering more sovereignty. Where do the Government stand on the issue of sovereignty? Where do they stand on a new treaty? Do they accept that they may have to bring this new legislation, pooling or surrendering sovereignty, to the House, and that if they meet opposition, they may have to guillotine it through the House as they did the Single European Act?
We have a right to know about those matters, but the Foreign Secretary told us nothing about them this afternoon. It may be that there is a good reason for that. Perhaps he does not know himself. Perhaps, in the immortal words of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Government are ruling nothing in and ruling nothing out. We do not know. The Foreign Secretary did not tell us. The only hint that he has given about proposals for the political intergovernmental conference, before his extremely woolly words this afternoon, was provided in his speech to the House on 8 November when he said:
"we would like to see a more prominent role for the European Parliament, not by giving it more legislative powers but in monitoring Community expenditure."—[Official Report, 8 November 1990; Vol. 180, c. 152–53.]
What on earth does that mean? What does it mean in terms of providing powers or not providing powers for the

491
European Parliament? It cannot be given a greater role without being given more powers and that may need legislation in this House and in the other areas of the Community.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that, because of the pressure on time, I shall not give way again.
Whatever the Foreign Secretary means by monitoring by the European Parliament of Community expenditure, will he propose such an innovation at the intergovernmental conference next week?
What about the widening of the Community? Austria's application for membership has been lodged, and Labour thinks that it should be accepted right away. There is no good reason for delaying Austrian accession to the Community until 1992 or any other year. The Foreign Secretary made a brief reference this afternoon to widening the Community, but he did not say whether the Government are in favour of immediate Austrian membership. He spoke again about negotiations on the European Free Trade Area. Will the right hon. Gentleman propose in Rome not only that Austria be admitted immediately, but that applications be invited from Sweden, whose Government have shown great and positive interest, and from the remaining EFTA countries? We should welcome all the EFTA countries into the Community as soon as they positively want to join.
The Government have failed to state their policy clearly and without equivocation—and having heard the Foreign Secretary's speech, I am not even sure that the Government have a policy. Like the former Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary has spoken at length about the accession of eastern European countries—and when the necessary conditions are fulfilled, we should welcome their membership as well. However, the Government do not appear to have a clear policy on the accession of other western European countries.
The Government's confusion in relation to political progress is as nothing compared with their total disarray over economic and monetary union. The Government promised a debate at some stage, but it is disgraceful that the House will not have that opportunity before the Chancellor of the Exchequer goes to the intergovernmental conference next week. The Foreign Secretary says, "I shall not refer to that aspect, because the House is to debate it." However, that will be after the intergovernmental conference, at which the Government may have made unequivocal commitments or even threats—and that could be very dangerous.
Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, although there may be a debate on economic and monetary union, it will not be arranged for next week—and that because there will be one of two conferences next weekend, today is the last opportunity to debate economic and monetary union before that conference? Does not it follow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that any speeches about, or references to, that aspect will be not only in order but central to the subject of this debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be for the Chair to make a ruling when that question arises.
Mr. Kaufman: Perhaps I, too, may respond to my hon. Friend's point of order. The Opposition amendment, which Mr. Speaker selected, makes specific reference to the Government's
"failure to produce a coherent policy towards the Inter-Governmental Conferences"—
plural—
"due to be held next week."
Therefore, any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who want to address the economic and monetary aspects will surely be in order.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), could not we resolve the issue and reach a specific conclusion on economic and monetary union by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) withdrawing the Opposition amendment to allow debate of the alternative amendment concerning constitutional, political and economic significance of the proposals?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House cannot consider altering now the business of the day. I have heard nothing so far that is out of order.
Mr. Kaufman: On the face of it, the new Prime Minister seems to be maintaining the uncompromising attitude displayed by his predecessor. Replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said, in a written answer:
"The Government remain opposed to the imposition of a single monetary policy managed by a European Central Bank as prescribed in stage 3 of the Delors report."—[Official Report, 3 December 1990; Vol. 182, c 45.]
That answers a question that was not put, but it nevertheless states the Prime Minister's position. Like most of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on that and other issues, it is meaningless. The Prime Minister asserts that the Government remain opposed
"to the imposition of a single monetary policy".
However, no one organisation can impose a central bank or a single currency on the United Kingdom. The question is whether a British Conservative Government would accept either or both. The answer is far from clear.
In the rewarding interview that he gave to Mr. Walden, the new Prime Minister himself posed the question:
"Could we accept an independent, non-elected central bank with external control over our domestic monetary situation?"
The right hon. Gentleman provided the answer to his own question:
"My answer to that is that the House of Commons will not accept that at the moment, and I do not think we should concede that at the moment."
Will there be a moment when the Government will concede either or both? We have not received an answer this afternoon.
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that specific point?
Mr. Kaufman: No, I have said that I shall not give way again. However, if the Foreign Secretary sought to intervene, I should naturally feel obliged to give way.
The outgoing Prime Minister certainly had an answer to that question. Asked whether she would veto any arrangement that jeopardised the pound sterling, she

493
replied simply, yes. In that fatal exchange on 30 October that led to the resignation of the deputy Prime Minister, the then Prime Minister was questioned by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—a former Euro-fanatic who is now a Euro-negativist.
Mr. David Shaw: That was nasty.
Mr. Kaufman: Nasty, but accurate.
The right hon. Member for Devonport has become a kind of clone of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes)—though happily not yet Cheltenham. His whole vision of the future of British politics to the turn of the century is governed by the burning question of whether Labour will have a candidate running for the Woolwich and Greenwich constituencies at the next general election. The answer to that question is clearly yes.
During questions on the former Prime Minister's statement about the Rome summit, the right hon. Member for Devonport asked whether Britain, if faced with the imposition by treaty of a single currency, would be en titled and right to use the veto. The right hon. Lady replied:
"I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, 30 October 1990; Vol, 178, c. 877.]
Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what is the Government's position under their new management?
Mr. Quentin Davies: The Government's policy remains unchanged.
Mr. Kaufman: No, I am talking about the latest Government—who will be in power for a short period yet, and whose Ministers will be attending intergovernmental conferences next week with no policy having been put to the Cabinet, let alone approved by it.
For a little while longer—longer than we hoped, in view of the poll tax time scale offered by the new Secretary of State for the Environment—we have to consider the policies of the present Government. The problem remains that we still do not know what they are. Will the Government use their veto against the imposition of a central bank or a single currency? Answer from the Foreign Secretary comes there none.
That is hardly surprising, because the Government have already accepted the principle of a central bank. Last Sunday, in Monza, the Governor of the Bank of England, Robin Leigh-Pemberton, signed draft statutes for the proposed central bank. He is a Government servant, and it is a nationalised organisation. There was no need for him to do that, yet he did it. In any case, the Government have already made it clear that they do not, in principle, oppose a single currency. As we all know, they have proposed the hard ecu—common currency.
Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman should be accurate. He avoids saying that there is a reserve by the Governor of the Bank of England on those statutes. He is misleading the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had a lot of bogus points of order. Many hon. Members seek to take part in the debate, and that process is not helped by interventions and bogus points of order.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has a copy of the statutes. It has been reported in the press—and not denied—that Robin Leigh-Pemberton, as Governor of the Bank of England, signed the statutes. The
494
question is why did he do so, if the Government are not yet committed to a central bank. In any case, the Government have already made it clear that they do not oppose a central currency in principle. They proposed the hard ecu, what they call the common currency—a half-baked nonsense with no future, as was shown by the meeting of Finance Ministers at Monza.
The new Chancellor of the Exchequer was quoted in The Daily Telegraph after that meeting as follows:
"Mr. Lamont claimed that one other country had shown `interest' in the British alternative."
How pathetic. I am sure that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office would be in favour, because that country is Spain and he has a great affection and affinity with Spain. A little interest by one out of 11 countries is not exactly encouraging. If Britain is almost entirely alone in espousing the cause of the hard ecu, there is no doubt about how Ministers see its future. In his Mansion house speech as Chancellor, the new Prime Minister said:
"The hard ecu could ultimately evolve towards a single currency."
In an interview with Mr. Jonathan Dimbleby on 25 November, the Prime Minister said:
"The hard ecu could develop into a single currency."
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury—whose survival as a Treasury Minister must have some significance—has gone even further. A couple of months ago he said:
"The hard ecu could easily develop into a single currency."
Speaking to the House of Lords Select Committee a couple of months ago, the Financial Secretary said of the hard ecru policy:
"The next stage of having a single currency could actually happen more quickly by going down this path"—
the path of the hard ecu.
Earlier this year the Foreign Secretary said that the hard ecu plan
"does not rule out a single currency in the longer term".
As for the new Secretary of State for the Environment, he said:
"At last we have recognised that a new central institution is inevitable and that a European currency is likely to come".
Perhaps he would like to talk with the Opposition parties about that.
So, the Government are clearly not opposed to the principle of a single currency. How could they be when they see their own pet notion of a hard ecu leading to that? The game was further given away by the Chancellor at Monza on Sunday when, talking about a central bank, he said:
"We do not see any need for institutions of that kind unless there was a single currency."
Once again the Government are entering the intergovernmental conference on EMU next week with no clear idea of what they are in favour of, or against. They will be jeopardising Britain's interests and the economic and political future of our country because of that imprecision and a lack of any clear policy at that crucial conference.
If the United Kingdom has nothing to propose at those meetings, others will make the running. If the United Kingdom does not put forward proposals for others to consider, accept, modify, vary and compromise with—with the aim of reaching ultimate agreement—that will not stop the other countries from agreeing and going forward, leaving the United Kingdom not only isolated but damaged.

495
If I and my right hon. Friends were taking part in those conferences, we would go there with clear proposals. We would propose the extension of qualified majority voting in the ministerial Council when we went to the political intergovernmental conference, and for a clearly enhanced role for the European Parliament, as specified in our policy document. We would go to the economic and monetary union intergovernmental conference with proposals for sensible conditions for further economic and monetary progress, in a manner that best serves Britain's long-term interests, and those of the Community. We would propose building on the strength of existing, well-tried institutions, such as ECOFIN, the Economic and Finance Council. We would be arguing for progress to be conditioned by progress on economic convergence. The Prime Minister cannot argue with that, because he has repeatedly spoken about the importance of convergence, for example, in his speech on 20 June, when he launched the hard ecu and said:
"Without greatly increased convergence, monetary union simply would not work."
In an interview in the Financial Times a few days ago, he specifically argued for what he called
"the right form of economic convergence"
as a condition for proceeding to a single currency.
The Labour party argues for economic convergence as a necessity for progress on all those issues. We would also be arguing for matters for which the Government show no interest whatever—for growth policies; and for enhanced regional and structural funds. I recognise that the Government laugh at growth, having plunged us into a recession under this Prime Minister. Yes, growth is a joke for the Government; but it is a not a joke for our partners in the Community. We should also be arguing for stronger social policies, including the social charter. We would be arguing for Britain. Instead of arguing for Britain, the Government have spent the past 12 years arguing among themselves. As the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East pointed out in his resignation speech, the consequence has been grave damage to British interests. Having been Foreign Secretary and Chancellor during that period—until he was humiliated by the right hon. Member for Finchley last year—he should know.
The fact is that, even after the change of Prime Minister, the Government have no idea of where they are going on European issues. They have no idea of what they want to do, and no idea of what they intend to say at the intergovernmental conferences. The Cabinet have not discussed it. The promised Cabinet paper has not been produced, and may not be produced. The present Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister have said that they value the House of Commons so much, that its sovereignty is so important, but we have not had a tittle of information to consider today so that we can give the advice of Parliament to Ministers who are going to the intergovernmental conferences in Rome next week to represent this country. The House has had no opportunity to give the Government any clear advice, based on declared Government policy, because there is no Government policy—all there is, is muddle, temporising, patching-up and trying to keep their split party together for a little longer.
The Government have failed the nation on Europe, as on the poll tax, the national health service, education and
496
the economy. The nation wants a new start. It will not get it from a Prime Minister who merely mouths the same old cliches in less memorable words. Britain will get a new start only with a new Government, and that means a Labour Government.
6.8 pm
Mr. David Howell: I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say this afternoon—as he did in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing yesterday—that there is to be no revolution in Government policy dealing with matters related to the European Community. Indeed, he affirmed that Britain's policy will continue to be based on practical steps towards our proper place in Europe, and proper development in Europe. In short, our policy would be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I am sure that that is the right approach. Anything else would lead to extremely inadequate developments in the European Community.
You have suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the question of European monetary union should not be central to the debate, but we cannot avoid discussing it, because monetary union raises fundamental political issues. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, along with others, will discuss those when they go to the European Council, and also at the two intergovernmental conferences that will begin immediately after that.
I do not see the difficulties in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) seemed to be wallowing. A common currency of a sort already exists, with an inadequate ecu; the markets clearly want a more substantial ecu, which is exactly what the so-called hard ecu will be. It will mean a currency that is managed, and a central institution—the European Monetary Fund—will be set up. That is the policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Over the next decade or so, we shall be able to see whether markets and people, customers and industry, really want to proceed to a huge, centalised single currency and monetary policy, to be run by an autonomous central bank. Personally, I doubt it very much: that would go entirely against history, leading to more centralism when what we want is more diffusion and decentralisation.
There is no need, however, for the right hon. Member for Gorton to become obsessed with whether that will happen in 10 years' time. The inner deutschmark zone of Germany, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria and one or two other countries will probably stick together in a kind of union for many years to come; a sort of "multi-speed" arrangement will probably develop, and I do not think that we need spend too much time worrying about it, because we have proposed our own common currency, managed by the European Monetary Fund. That will give everyone in Europe a decade or so to decide whether they want to move on, and, if so, how.
Mr. Spearing: In view of the importance of economic and monetary union—which he has emphasised, despite its omission from the discussion by the Foreign Secretary—does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in accordance with our universal desire for more parliamentary input in European Community matters, a special Select Committee should be appointed to look into the potential benefits of EMU, potential methods of organisation and, perhaps,

497
some of the risks. Would that not be a wise step, in view of the fact that past Community treaties have sometimes not turned out quite as they were advertised?
Mr. Howell: The Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service has already conducted an inquiry, and will no doubt conduct more: the IGC opening next week is only the beginning of many months—possibly years of—discussion. Existing Select Committees will certainly has the opportunity to look into the matter very closely.
Let me return to the question of political developments in Europe. My party's policy is, very properly, cautious and evolutionary; the Opposition's policy appears, in a sense, to have evolved already. I congratulate them: they have come up with a very clear policy, which some of us had the privilege of glimpsing when we attended the Rome parliamentary conference last week.
I freely confess that, among the Conservatives, there were and remain divided views on how fast and how far we should go with all these complex issues. On the whole, however, we take the view that the calm and common-sense evolutionary approach of my right hon. Friend will allow matters to develop at the right speed. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will no doubt confirm and explain to his Back Benchers, the position in the Labour party was very different. Although one Labour Member—the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), displaying his usual integrity—dissented from the very federalist declaration passed by the parliamentary groups in Rome, I understand that the official Labour party, led by its official spokesman, voted for the full centralised, federalised socialist ticket.
The document to which the party gave full support includes not merely union on a federal basis, but approval for an autonomous central bank, approval for arriving at a single currency, approval for the Commission to become the executive of the entire European union, a vast extension of qualified majority voting, approval for the president of the Commission to be voted in by the European Parliament, approval for the European Parliament's initiation of legislation, a vast extension of the Community's powers over social environmental matters—in fact, the full federal arrangements. Just to ram the point home, the document ends with a call for all those measures to become the official policy of all member Governments and of the forthcoming IGCs. Labour Members voted—openly and, as I appreciate, very bravely—for that as the official policy of their party.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman is making rather less than his usual contribution. As he must know very well, he has produced a complete caricature of the Labour document, which is a united document.
Having labelled the resolution "socialistic", the right hon. Gentleman should take account of some people who supported it and who would reject the application of such a term. This is partly why his party is so isolated in the European Parliament, and on Europe generally: it uses labels that are wholly separate from the major course of the current political developments in Europe.
Mr. Howell: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has got that upside down. What concerns me as we advance in European terms—I freely confess to being pro-Europe—is not the difficulties that we encounter in our enormous task, which is forcing us to face many new
498
issues which we seek honestly to face; what concerns me is the uncritical and facile welcome given to a general, massive centralisation of power in a kind of United States of Europe, something that belongs more to the 18th and 19th centuries than to the 21st. I suppose that, in a way, it is no surprise to me that a socialist Labour party should go along with that.
The details—everything that I have said—appear in the document that I have in my hand, which was fully supported, officially, by the Labour party.
Mr. Peter Shore: I think that there has been a genuine misunderstanding. It is my clear view that those who went to the so-called assize were speaking entirely for themselves, and could in no way claim to represent either their parties or, even more important, the House of Commons. Responsibility for supporting the shameful propositions listed by the right hon. Gentleman belongs entirely to those people, as individuals.
Mr. Howell: I hate to cross swords with the right hon. Gentleman, for whose views and integrity I have the profoundest respect, but I must regretfully tell him that the picture that he has tried to paint is not the true one. I freely confess that those on my side acted as individuals; indeed, scorn may be poured on us because we did not all go in the same direction. Some were in favour, some were against and some abstained. Labour's official spokesman, however, said that Labour representatives had received word from London that they were authorised to support the document. Let me say in their defence that, when their spokesman supported the document, he expressed some reservations—and, my goodness, reservations are needed, for this is the full, old-fashioned federalist ticket, with no qualifications.
Mr. Anderson: To an extent, the right hon. Gentleman has put the record straight. He should say, however, that his party's representatives—including him—were split three ways; and, having said that we accepted the whole federalist package, he should stress that substantial reservations were expressed by the Labour party spokesman. With the exception of one Member, we spoke with a united voice, while the three-way split among the Conservatives reflected the massive division in the party.
Mr. Howell: This does not bode very well for the future. If a possible Labour Government's approach would be to accept everything, vote for it and then, in one and a half minutes, say that they have some reservations, there is not much hope of them defending the country's interests.
Some of us went to Rome with rather higher hopes than were justified to try to establish and strengthen the role of national Parliaments in the process of European development. That was the real purpose. I am afraid that we did not really get down to that. However, inside the document, among all the generalised federalist aspirations, there are one or two ideas that we should examine further on how this Parliament and other national Parliaments can rightly play their decisive and central role in the future development of Europe and its democratic structure. As I have said, I am afraid that we did not get very far because of the long list of centralising aspirations which had such enthusiastic support from certain quarters.
We need to have a clear way of deciding who does what in the Community, where the powers are to lie and how the

499
people who hold the powers will be accountable. Hon. Members who are trying to focus on the central issue should keep reminding themselves and others that we do not see this as a matter of tiers and pyramids, with the Community institutions being a higher tier and the national Parliaments being a lower tier.
I reject the analysis, even of distinguished people such as commissioners in Brussels, when they grandly talk about subsidiarity meaning that the big strategic issues will be held by something called the Community and that lower levels will manage national affairs. That is the wrong way of seeing things. There is no superior or inferior body in the future structure. Powers and functions may be handled at different levels and that may change over time because nothing is fixed about the arrangements. We must remember, as must our friends in the European Parliament and officials in the Community institutions, that the Community is at our disposal. It is not the master. The nation states are the fundamental units of politics and any question of powers must be settled on that basis.
Sir Ian Lloyd: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend's interesting speech. He referred to the term "nation state". Is he aware of a remark made not long ago by the recently deceased Andrei Sakharov, who was a great man, a great political leader and one of the greatest scientists? One of his last remarks was that there is no problem facing the modern world that can any longer be solved by the nation state.
Mr. Howell: That is fine, and it diverts me fascinatingly, because that man was a sad child of a gigantic empire that is far too large and is now falling apart. We in Europe are thinking in rather different terms. I shall come back to why the nation state, far from belonging to the 19th century, may be the appropriate administrative unit for the 21st century. I am talking about the nation state as we understand it and not as it was understood by the poor harassed Soviet citizens and the heroes who sought to dissent from the Stalinist empire.
The guiding principle that we are offered to try to sort out who does what at which level has been the matter of subsidiarity. Some of my hon. Friends and people throughout the European Community have rightly pointed out that there are real practical difficulties in pinning that down and defining it. If one tries to put it into the preamble of the treaties, which is proposed in the declaration supported by the Labour party, there will be problems about how it is judged and how it is made justiciable in the courts. There is always the difficulty that, if it is the European Court that makes the judgments, there will be a drift towards the centre, the judgments will be in favour of a central power and we will not have got much further in ensuring that the centralising tendencies of European affairs are countered by proper democratic forces. Therefore, subsidiarity is difficult; we cannot simply say, "Fine, put it in the treaty." We must do much more work, and perhaps Britain can contribute to the work of trying to bring home the enormous practical difficulties of giving it a legal sense and definition.
The central issue for this Parliament must be accountability. It was at the conference in Rome that I and some of my hon. Friends tried to put forward some ideas as to how the affairs of the European Community, the
500
decisions of the Council of Ministers and the activities of the Commission could be made much more accountable and democratic. We have done more in this Parliament through parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Member for Newham, South has set a towering example of energy and application with his Committee in showing how parliamentary scrutiny can be extended. I greatly admire him for that. We can do that, and other Parliaments throughout Europe should do the same. We can seek to have earlier information and an opportunity to discuss issues before they are, as it were, cooked and baked into policy, so that the sensation of being bounced and having a ready-made policy from Brussels delivered on our plate can be ameliorated.
One suggestion is that, when the presidency changes every six months, it should circulate its intentions to all member Parliaments, so that they can be discussed. Another suggestion is that the Commission should put forward its annual work programme in great detail for member Parliaments to discuss. Another possibility, which we have all analysed, is that the European Parliament and national Parliaments should work much closer together. That is right but, as I have said, the European Parliament is not the centre of all this but merely a part of the democratic procedure. This is not a federal Government, so the European Parliament could not play the sole role in filling the so-called democratic deficit.
I do not feel happy about the idea—again, it is apparently official Labour party policy—that the European Parliament should initiate legislation. I can see all sorts of difficulties in that. We want our colleagues in the European Parliament to be more effective in controlling Community expenditure. They are able and equipped to do that. It may be that a degree of co-decision between the national Parliaments and the European Parliament is desirable, but that is for us to decide here. Perhaps we should seek an inter-parliamentary agreement stipulating minimum standards of scrutiny, control forewarning and advance information required by all national Parliaments in the Community so that there is effective input and control from national level.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his friends in the European Parliament. Is it not true that the majority of Conservative Members of the European Parliament supported the Rome document which the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) has referred to as socialistic?
Mr. Howell: I said that Conservative Members had different ideas about it; I did not disguise the differences of view. It is a bit of a curate's egg and, like the curate's egg, it is excellent in parts. My judgment remains—it will be shared by many in the Labour party—that it is a pretty hot federalist stew. It remains a matter of amazement that the Opposition Front Bench representives should put their imprimatur upon it. They had their reasons, and no doubt they will be explained later; however, it looks a little odd.
We should be concentrating on seeking to bring true and reassuring democracy to the European process. There is a place in that for the Community institutions and the European Parliament. There is also a vital place for national Parliaments. We are closer to people. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we need political reform. We need such reform in the United

501
Kingdom as well, and I have no doubt that we will get some. We need reform that spreads and does not centralise power.
We need reform that reverses, not accelerates, the drift to the centre that is bound to go on. Everyone in Brussels can see that it is going on. It needs to embrace and not reject the new democracies of eastern Europe and the new applicants. I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton about the position of Austria. Above all, we need political reform that refreshes and does not suffocate and stifle national identities and national differences and diversities. Those must be the guiding principles, not those sometimes reflected in the sort of document to which I have referred.
I am sorry if I have taken a long time, but there have been many interruptions. I apologise for detaining the House so long.
Such political reform should be rooted in nation states, not—I emphasise this to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd)—because nation states are part of the old order that Mr. Sakharov feared but because they are part of the new order and because they provide a sensible administrative unit—a comfortable size of administrative power—in this age of global generalities and mega-organisations and institutions, which many people feel to be extremely remote from them.
Those are the principles that I believe and offer to my hon. Friends as the ones that we should enshrine in our approach to political reform in Europe. As with monetary reform, to which our evolutionary approach is correct, all we need is the intellectual vigour and power to persuade others who are ready and open to persuasion that this is the sensible way forward.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that right hon. and hon. Members will exercise more restraint in the length of their speeches; otherwise, some of them will be disappointed.
6.30 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: This is one of the most important debates on the European Community that we have held. It comes immediately ahead of the two major conferences—the intergovernmental conferences on economic and monetary union and on political union.
The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who chairs the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs with such distinction, will recall that earlier this year the Select Committee published a report on what was happening in Europe and the enormous changes that were taking place. We must consider what is happening in some perspective, so I should like to begin my remarks by quoting two short passages from that report. We said:
"We should not underestimate the continued strength of the momentum for the move towards federal objectives … There may be varying tactical shifts and differences of detail, but the old objective of a federal Europe is being reinforced at the highest official and political levels."
The concluding paragraph said:
"It is clear to us that the Community now developing is very different from the Community that the UK joined in the 1970s."
And it is. The Europe that we joined in 1973 was still basically a "Europe des patries"—a Europe of independent nation states determined to co-operate to achieve a common European goal. The Europe that the two
502
intergovernmental conferences wish to create is a supranational quasi-federal union in which major decisions are taken no longer by national Parliaments and Governments but by Community institutions.
Many tributaries of feeling and experience have led to this great and remarkable surge in favour of European union. In Spain and Portugal, the long experience of fascist and authoritarian rule led their people and politicians to believe that their democracies could be made secure only within a larger democratic union. In Italy, the weakness of the state and the extent of public mistrust in the Government in Rome has led most Italian political leaders to the belief that they are likely to be better governed from Brussels than from the capital of their own country. France, which has long been the champion of national independence in the European Community, has radically changed its stance, motivated basically by its fear of a united Germany and its wish to enmesh its great economic power and that of the Bundesbank in European decision-making. No doubt that is what the Lilliputians thought about binding Gulliver with cords. Meanwhile, the Germans are anxious to assure the world that they see their future not in national but in European terms.
A great melee of different sources of inspiration are moving in the same direction. The supranational institutions of the Community—the Commission and the European Parliament have always been supranational—are, as always, anxious to extend their own decision-making powers. Hon. Members, and certainly the Government, have fed those unionist ambitions and created new opportunities by agreeing, in the Single European Act, to a substantial increase in majority voting in the Council of Ministers and to the commitment to European monetary union in a foolishly written preamble from which we are now desperately trying to escape.
We have not been helped by the assize to which the right hon. Member for Guildford referred. I very much fear that Members of Parliament from other countries who attended that assize between 27 and 30 November might have gained a false impression about the position of those who attended it and the extent to which they spoke for Members of Parliament generally. I must draw attention to some of the extraordinary passages in the meeting's final declaration. Paragraph 2 says that it
"Takes the view that EMU must be achieved on the basis of the timetable and conditions agreed by the European Council in Rome on 27/28 October 1990".
They accept that timetable, which as I recall is 1994 for the second stage, and then onwards as quickly as possible to the third stage with a full single currency and economic and monetary union. The declaration continues:
"Political union comprising a foreign and security policy on matters of common interest must be established and that European Political Cooperation must be incorporated into the Treaty …
Takes the view that the Community should be given additional competence in the field of the environment and that decision-making in this area should be by qualified voting …
Considers that the time is right to transform the entire complex of relations between the Member States into a European Union on the basis of a proposal for a constitution …
Calls for meetings of the Council … to act by majority voting except in connection with amendments to the Treaties, the accession of new member states."
That is an extraordinary and outrageous commitment
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones):The right hon. Gentleman is right—it is an extraordinary commitment. I assume that he is aware that Conservative Members who attended the assize as individual Members of Parliament representing their constituencies—a perfectly proper thing to do—distinctly heard the Opposition spokesman not only vote for the list that the right hon. Gentleman has just read out but declare that it was Labour party policy. What has he to say to that?
Mr. Shore: I think that I know the answer. The only part that has appeared in a Labour party document is that relating to qualified majority voting on environmental issues. The other propositions cannot be found in any policy document of the Labour party.
Mr. George Robertson: It would be advisable for my right hon. Friend to have a word with me before jumping to conclusions and accepting some of the propaganda being put out. What the Minister said was entirely untrue and wrong. When I spoke on behalf of some of the Labour Members who attended the meeting, I made it absolutely clear that we had severe reservations about some of the points in the text, which I identified and many of which were made by my right hon. Friend. May I point out—I am as careful as my right hon. Friend about Labour party policy—that a decision has been made subsequent to the policy document which was passed by the conference? The national executive committee endorsed the Dublin declaration made earlier this year by the leaders of the socialist parties. Many of the points that were part of that declaration were part of the Dublin declaration, to which our party is committed.
Mr. Shore: I take seriously what my hon. Friend has to say—except, of course, his remark that I might have consulted him. He might have consulted all of us before he went to Rome and after he came back. I content myself by advising him to read with care the extracts that I quoted. Apart from the environmental issue, they are clearly and definitely not part of Labour policy.
Mr. Michael Lord rose——
Mr. Shore: I am sorry; I need to make progress.
All the points so far have been the small change of the debate and we want to get on to the serious subject of what we are facing in Europe. I used the quotations as an illustration of the powerful forces which, in Europe today, are trying to bring about a federal European union. It does not matter how they describe it and we could have a long debate about what federal union is. The aim is, above all, a union which goes far beyond the "Europe des patries" that we thought we had joined 17 years ago.
We should judge the current proposals for European monetary union and for political union against the background of the thrust in Europe towards union. The content of the proposals is aimed not so much at solving the practical problems that have arisen, but at furthering the cause of European union. Let us consider, for example, the argument in favour of economic and monetary union. It is said—by those who advocate it, of course—that it will help currency stability, that it will help to deal with the familiar problems of currency speculation and that it will introduce a strong anti-inflation bias into the economies of the member countries.
Mr. Giles Radice: Hear, hear.
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend may say that, but I must point out that the same objectives were followed and the same claims were made on behalf of the exchange rate mechanism. It was said that that would have an impact on inflation and would stop currency speculation. We are entitled to ask what the special virtue of economic and monetary union is over the exchange rate mechanism. The only serious point that I have been able to find is references to the so-called "great savings" in transaction costs. Transaction costs were virtually unknown in the House until the Delors report appeared a year or so ago.
I want to quote from a speech by Karl Otto Pohl, who is something of an authority on banking matters, on transaction costs and on the contribution that European monetary union would make towards a great saving. On 3 September 1990, he said:
"The repeated references to alleged huge savings in transaction costs for the countries of a single currency area are not in the least convincing."
I take it that he has a fairly serious opinion in these matters.
What is the real reason for going beyond the exchange rate mechanism into European monetary union? It was stated by Mr. Andreotti, the President of the Council of Ministers, during the six months of the Italian presidency. He said to the European Parliament on 21 November:
"for the first time in the history of Europe, we shall confer upon the Community one of the distinctive and essential competencies on which national sovereignty is historically built."
That is the prize and that is the objective. European monetary union is not primarily about solving economic problems, but about transferring to the Community something that is central and indispensable to what he calls "national sovereignty" and I call parliamentary democracy and the accountability of Government to the people of this land.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that he had not heard of transactional costs before the Delors report came out shows his remarkable personal ignorance of business and industry? If he had ever tried to import or export anything, he would have known all too well what transactional costs were.
Mr. Shore: This is too small a point about which to bicker. I am very familiar with the phrase "transactional costs", which has become a central argument for the merits—so-called—of joining the European monetary union. That is why I have brought the matter forward for discussion and that is why I quoted Herr Pöhl's comments.
The thrust to European union colours and distorts all judgment on the approach to economic and monetary union. I fear that the Government are in for a difficult time. While they are trying to argue for a rational economic policy, they will find themselves up against that overt thrust, as Andreotti made plain in his address to the European Parliament.
I fear that we shall face the same problem at the conference on political union. We know that the Commission, the European Parliament and the Governments of Italy, of Spain and of Germany are strongly in favour of four objectives. They want a certain concept of subsidiarity to be adopted in the treaties themselves. They do not want from subsidiarity what this House would like from subsidiarity. We want the

505
interpretation of subsidiarity to lead to the minimum of supranational control or intervention in our affairs. They want the concept to be included for the opposite reason, so that they can then argue the case for taking more powers away from national Parliaments and from national democracies. That concept is dangerous and it would be even more dangerous if it were introduced into a treaty which also gave powers of interpretation either to a court or to a majority of the Council. If that were to happen, we should find ourselves wide open to the ever-increasing encroachment of European law on our national life.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not true that the problem with the European Court already is that it is highly political? Its role is to interpret in a political sense whether countries are complying with the treaty. This country is not used to accepting that concept.
Mr. Shore: That is right. The European Court has been an emblem of centralism, as my hon. Friend has suggested. That is part of the reason why we coined the phrase "the creeping competence" of the Community. That comment was based on the extension of the powers of intervention of the Community as a result of rulings in the European Court.
Those who favour political union want to give the European Parliament legislative powers and they want to extend the competence of the treaties into foreign affairs and security, and into a wider and ever-growing area of social policy. However, the heart of the matter is the pressure to extend majority voting in the Council of Ministers. That view has been expressed in the Commission's report, in the European Parliament submission and in the wretched assize. Why are they so keen on that? The reason is that it would disarm the national democracies.
We can influence our Ministers, but if they do not exercise the right of veto through the unanimity rule, they can be constantly outvoted in the Council of Ministers. As an increasing number of areas of policy are brought within majority voting, those who favour such change say, "The democratic deficit is getting bigger and bigger—we must have more and more powers so that we can rectify the loss of democracy which we, in our folly, allowed to take place by transferring the powers to the Europeans in the first place." The right way to deal with the democratic deficit is not to give more decisions to majority voting, but to take some of them back. I hope that that proposal will be given due consideration.
What should we do on 14 December? I wholly accept what the Foreign Secretary said about playing our full part, about seeking to persuade, and about having certain proposals to put forward. They sounded reasonably innocuous, and that is right. I am sure that we should seek to persuade, not just hector and lecture. That would be very much better—in the end it would payoff. We have to face clearly what, after all our best endeavours in respect of EMU and political union, we shall do if we find ourselves either in a minority or alone. We have to be prepared for that. I do not necessarily forecast it—I hope that it will not occur—but if it does, we must stand up.
Some people say that if we opt out from the proposals, either alone or with others, we shall be condemned to a second tier or to a two-speed Europe, or that we shall abandon the high ground. They are intoxicated by their own inaccurate metaphors. The real analogy is far closer.
506
Suppose we did not have a common agricultural policy and that we are to have an intergovernmental conference to establish a CAP this December. The EMU proposals alone are 10 times more damaging to the interests of the British people than the CAP. Would we stand alone and say to the rest of Europe, "Go ahead with your CAP; we do not agree; we are in with the rest of the matters which join us together in the Rome treaty and accession to it, but not with the CAP." We would be very pleased to have stood out and stood our ground. I very much hope that that will be the position not only of the Government but of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
6.51 pm
Mr. Michael Spicer: In my first speech from the Back Benches for 10 years, I take this opportunity to say what a great privilege it was to serve for so long in the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). I am particularly pleased to have been able to play a small part in taking through Parliament the Electricity Bill, which resulted yesterday in an estimated 6 million people applying for shares. That is a huge success by any standards and a shining example for other European countries. [Interruption.] Even my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) was queuing for shares.
It is now pretty well common ground in Britain that we should press forward fast with the creation of a single European common market. Well over half our trade is with the European Community, and it is in the direct interest of the jobs and prosperity of our citizens that Britain should thrive within that Community. Indeed, it has been Britain's position in Europe for many years that we wish to see a free market trading openly with the rest of the world. This country also leads the way in welcoming the potential expansion of the EC to include the nations of what used to be called the eastern bloc.
The argument about Europe, at least in this country, is not about the pace at which we remove barriers to trade—the quicker the better for most of us—but about the character and development of the financial, monetary and political mechanisms which are thought to be necessary for the European market. As the discussion moves from the trade market to the mechanisms of finance, so the questions have less to do with co-operation and more to do with supranational and potentially undemocratic controls.
In my view, it is distracting, if not absurd, to contemplate a single currency for Europe run by an unelected central bank before we have begun properly to sort out the workings of the single market. With many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall certainly play my part in ensuring that that remains the view of the British Government, especially in the days ahead in Rome. I was relieved by what I read into what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on that matter.
I now refer to a European matter which is even more immediate and pressing than EMU—the exchange rate mechanism. Our entry into the ERM was welcomed by both sides of the House and by most of the press, but it is clear now that the bands within which the pound is allowed to float are sustained only by damagingly high rates of interest in Britain. That means, for instance, that German industry in recent months has enjoyed a 50 per cent. advantage over its British competitors in terms of the cost of its borrowings and investments.

507
Even with those differences in interest rates, highly disadvantageous as they are to our industry and commerce, the pound is falling towards the bottom of the band. There is, therefore, a case for arguing either that United Kingdom interest rates are too low to sustain the band or that the ERM bands are themselves too high. Far from believing that interest rates are too low, I have been concerned for many months about the level of interest rates and, from time to time, have expressed anxieties in writing to colleagues. In February—nine months ago—I wrote:
"There must be a danger now of a demand squeeze turning into a real threat to supply side confidence. There seems now to be a lag of about two years between a major change of interest rate levels and investment rates.
Seven months later—in September—I wrote again:
"I have been asking myself again why it is that the UK continues to suffer worse swings of `stop-go' economic cycles than any of our competitors, with more serious effects in particular on business confidence.
The answer I believe continues to be that our economic and monetary authorities have less of an appreciation than others of the lags in the economy in particular between changes in interest policy and business investment.
They tend, as they have done for the past fifty years, to respond to the events of the day without projecting forward the effects of their policies for the necessary 18–24 months. These policies are therefore alternatively more severe and more lax than is required.
Thus, for instance, high interest rates, introduced when the economy was already entering a downswing (and when inflationary forces were mostly caused by a slowdown of productivity increases) will begin seriously to bite as the economy enters a recession next year.
The two arguments against reducing interest rates are now 1) inflation and 2) the pound. Inflation will be brought under control by the emerging recession. A pound related to genuine market conditions is surely what is required for our balance of payments. For this reason I have been convinced for some months that interest rates are too high and that they should start to be reduced at once."
All of that was written before we entered the ERM. There are those who argue that if we now renegotiate the ERM bands, as I believe that we should, and thus devalue the pound, we shall stir up the embers of inflation, but I do not believe that. It would be true only if there existed the purchasing power here greatly to expand more expensive imports, which will clearly not be the case in the economically difficult months ahead. Despite the recent peculiar figures for consumer credit, the retail market is plainly in the doldrums and likely to remain there for the time being.
Others argue that the German mark will itself collapse as Germany sorts out its eastern half. It would, of course, make matters worse from our point of view if Germany responded by raising her interest rates. It would be ironic indeed if British industry had to pay the cost of German unification through high interest rates. The French are already beginning to grumble at that prospect as it dawns on them that Germany may choose high interest rates in preference to increasing taxes on her own people. For the United Kingdom, the hard probability is that if we are to reduce interest rates from their present dangerously high levels, and under the existing European financial mechanism the pressure may actually be upwards, we shall have to renegotiate the ERM band to a lower median level of the pound against the deutschmark.
Now is precisely the time to do it, while a new Prime Minister and a new Chancellor of the Exchequer are
508
enjoying a honeymoon period at home and abroad. Should they wish to do so, they would be able in their negotiations to offer to reduce the range of the banding to the narrow 2·25 per cent. The alternative to such negotiations is high and probably rising interest rates at home. Those would, next year, turn a recession into a severe slump. The consequence of that would be the almost certain electoral defeat of my party at the next general election.
As a former deputy chairman of my party, I have never waivered in my belief that the economic cycle, and not such issues as the community charge, is the real and probably exclusive determinant of election results. What matters in politics is economics. Conservative Administrations have made historic improvements to the supply side of the economy. We must not now put all of that at risk by compelling British industry and commerce to compete unfairly through a combination of high interest rates and artificially high exchange rates, brought together within the present banding levels of the pound in the European exchange rate mechanism.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation.
7 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: Although I shall be putting a view that is not generally popular in the House, as I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, I shall not give way. I normally give way, because I believe in doing so. I appreciate the necessity for a time limit on speeches, although it means that we become like the continental hemicycles that we criticise for lending themselves to setpiece speeches.
It is about time, too, that the Front-Bench speakers in this place took their share of the limitation on time. I am sure that the House would not have suffered greatly if the one minute less than three quarters of an hour which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) took had been cut by half.
I, too, was at the assize in Rome. I found it a remarkable and inspiring occasion. I was enormously impressed by the general enthusiasm expressed by the representatives—they were very much representatives—of the political movements from all our partner countries in the Community.
The right hon. Member for Gorton complained because, he said, the Government did not know where they were going. I assure the House that Liberal Democrats know where we are going. We also know where we stand, and, what is more, we are not split. Indeed, the Liberal leaders in Berlin, when meeting on 23 November, urged, among other things,
"the Intergovernmental Conferences convened in December 1990 to take substantial steps towards transforming the Community into a genuine European Union based on a constitution of a federal type."
That was part of the declaration of the assize, as hon. Members who were there will appreciate.
I fail to understand what all the objections and fears about federalism mean. After all, federalism represents a democratic limitation on central power, not the other way

509
round. I am continually amazed by the apparent new conversion of Conservative Members, in particular, to the idea of decentralisation.
The Labour view, expressed over three quarters of an hour, boiled down in many respects to continually asking the Government when they would use their veto. There was a negativism about the speech of the right hon. Member for Gorton.
The Government view is that by day we will order a suit from a Bruges tailor, but by night we will slip into dungarees, make a few quick changes and hope that nobody notices. I am left wondering precisely where the Government stand. I notice, for example, that a friend of the Government, Mr. Jacques Chirac, reported in the Financial Times this morning, in launching a new party policy document, said:
"We refuse the conception of the French Socialists, as well as of the Germans and of the Italians"—
doubtless he could have mentioned a number of others—
"for a federation of the Twelve."
He went on to talk about
"an intergovernmental union of European nations."
Is that what the Government want?
I do not have time to express in detail the Liberal Democratic view, but following the meeting on 23 November to which I referred, those attending said:
"the Intergovernmental Conferences should make a qualatitive leap forward to democracy by granting full co-decision powers to the directly elected European Parliament in all areas of Community legislation, with Council, when acting in its legislative capacity, deciding in public and by qualified majority."
I do not have time to develop that point.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) considers those to be shameful declarations. There is nothing shameful about them. I accept that the concept is different, but it is a searching after democracy. We in this House are not all that accountable. We in this country do not apply subsidiarity particularly well. Was the poll tax in Scotland, on the basis of 28 per cent. of the vote and only 10 out of 72 Members of Parliament, an example of the operation of subsidiarity, a concept for which Conservative Members seem suddenly to have developed an enormous affection? I do not think so.
On enlargement, I have time only to agree with the view on Austria, although, in the view of the eastern countries and, I believe, the Scandinavians, we should not hold back the greater coherence of the European Community. Indeed, they would approve of it. We Liberal Democrats also accept references to foreign affairs, defence and security and we believe that in the end those will be European Community responsibilities. A Labour party document commented:
"A military role for the EC would make the position of Ireland as a neutral country very difficult—and make it impossible for Austria, Switzerland and Sweden, as neutral countries, to join."
Why are they neutral, and between whom are they neutral? The neutrality agreement is dead, because the cold war is dead. In Ireland, Fine Gael is already asking for a re-examination of those questions.
I do not have time to deal with the question of European monetary union. The issue is how to share sovereignty properly in a different world, and it certainly is a different world in which we are now living. We often talk about the sovereignty of this House. Hon. Members who want to maintain the status quo frequently talk about it.
510
In reality, a strong party system based on a truly unrepresentative and divisive electoral system has created sovereign Governments who, when in office, do their will without much regard for Parliament. We want the citizen to have greater sovereignty; or, as the Leader of the Liberal Democrats said on Tuesday:
"The European debate must stop being one about the power of nations, and start to be one about the entitlements of the citizen."
Liberal Democrats—Liberals generally—are about individuals and individual freedom. We naturally think that way.
The issue is not only London and Brussels. It is London and Edinburgh, London and Cardiff and York and Bristol. We were happy to co-operate with the Labour party in the Scottish convention, and that represented a relevant issue. It was an important illustration of the need to re-examine the nature of how we are governed, not only without but within the United Kingdom.
That does not only mean accepting that we can no longer do certain things alone at the European level. It means looking at subsidiarity internally, breaking down the centralisation of Whitehall and giving power back to the peoples in the old nations and regions of the United Kingdom. It also involves seeing whether in some areas the link need not be London to Brussels but Edinburgh, Cardiff and so on to Brussels.
We are in a period of great change. I do not agree with the Foreign Secretary when he says that there is no ineluctability—there is an ineluctable movement and we must ask ourselves how we should handle it because it will change the nature of the nation state. In that moment, Liberal Democrats will argue throughout for giving the individual citizen greater freedom and influence. That can be done within the frame of the ideas set out in the assize and argued in our policy statements on the European Community.
7.10 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney: Due to the time constraints under which we are labouring, I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will forgive me for not following his points, except to say that his contribution highlighted the diversity of opinion that understandably exists in the House. As is well recognised, that diversity spreads across and within our parties. Another feature of European affairs debates, as all of us who are regular attenders understand, is that the individual contributors are not at the centre of gravity of their party, but tend for the most part to reflect the extreme views of either position. There is a great mass of opinion in our party that should be more widely represented, but sadly is not.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to continuity on the part of the Conservative party. It is a perfectly understandable and fair debating point for Opposition politicians to suggest that there is a lack of continuity. However, in that regard, the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is underestimated. In a debate on the subject on 19 December 1988, I suggested that the Government would do well to take down from the archives a memorandum that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley put to her fellow Heads of Government in the European Community in 1984.

511
We learn from the press that there is discussion about whether there should be another Government paper about our attitude to European Community affairs. Whether or not there is to be another one, I recommend Ministers to re-read the 1984 statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley. In it, she said:
"responding to the needs and aspirations of its 270 million inhabitants"—
of the Community before its enlargement—
"means giving greater depth to the Community in both its internal and external activities."
It continued by saying that we had
"only just begun to take advantage of its"
the Community's—
"great potential."
The memorandum stated that there was a need to
"create the sense of common purpose and momentum needed to … defend our collective interests in an increasingly troubled world; fulfill our international responsibility to the causes of freedom, democracy, prosperity and peace."
It went on to talk about the need to develop a genuine common market and the intra-Community trade that we have seen in the evolution of the Single European Act and the Community market to which we are now moving, and to which the Government have made such a contribution.
The memorandum said that the common agricultural policy—a familiar target—needed
"a continuing effort to correct the distortions."
As we well recognise, that effort continues to be needed. In the industrial sector, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley called for
"action on a Community basis rather than nationally"
and
"Better co-operation on research and development."
She continued:
"Many environmental problems require action going beyond the capabilities of individual Member States."
My right hon. Friend showed the great foresight and vision for which she is noted. Some six years ago, she spotted environmental problems and the contribution that the Community could make to help solve them.
My right hon. Friend said that our objective must be
"to aim beyond the common Commercial Policy through Political Co-operation towards a common approach to external affairs … The growth of Political Co-operation enables the members of the Community increasingly to adopt common positions on world problems … we must be ready in Europe to make progress towards the liberalisation of our trading practices, and to play a full part in strengthening the GATT trading system."
How sad it is to reflect on that objective in the light of the events of the past few days in Brussels. Let us hope that progress can be made there.
The penultimate paragraph of my right hon. Friend's memorandum stated:
"Periodic expressions of pessimism about the future of the Community have never turned out to be justified. Europe needs to advance its internal development. The progress that has been made towards 'an ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe' of which the Treaty of Rome speaks in its first paragraph is unlikely to be reversed."
That is the objective and aim on which we are set.
I do not believe that we shall ever be talking about a United States of Europe based on the model of that in north America. I simply do not know—no one knows—what we shall have achieved in 10 or 50 years. I know that it will be a difficult and exciting time, different from anything that exists, or has existed, in history. I also know that if this part of the globe, western Europe, is to achieve
512
the stability, prosperity and security to which we and our constituents aspire, it will be crucial for Britain to play an active part in the process.
I strongly welcome the words of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, that our position should be on the playing field, participating. We shall certainly take part in the two intergovernmental conferences. The first one is on the institutions—we must find a more constructive role for the European Parliament. Due to the constraints of time, I cannot elaborate on what its role may be, but at present that Parliament is not efficiently or sufficiently used.
I shall offer a few principles on European monetary union. We should all approach with an open mind what will undoubtedly be long and complex negotiations. Although our 12 countries have been working together and have geographical continuity, nevertheless we are still different economically, socially and in many other significant ways. Therefore, any form of moving together in close co-operation will take a long time, and we should recognise that. It may well be that the hard ecu could make a contribution as a common currency. I am not convinced of that—none of us can be sure—but it is a strong possibility. In good time, it may turn out to be a stepping stone to a single currency. We should not shy away from what some people regard as a threat of a single currency.
The advantages of a single currency must be obvious. When, before 1914, our forefathers enjoyed with the gold standard what was, in effect, a single currency, no one was frightened about the threat to sovereignty. Our predecessors did not believe that the sovereignty of Parliament or the nation was threatened because we enjoyed the single currency of the gold standard. Moving towards a single currency will be hugely difficult, but the difficulties will not be so much for this country as between whatever colossus Germany develops into and Greece at the other extreme—we are somewhere in between. I believe that we can live with that.
I suspect that some hon. Members who are frightened of a single currency do not believe in the economic capacity and potential of our country. I do not share that pessimism. I believe that we can look our European partners in the face and live with it. A great help towards moving to a common currency would be the introduction of an independent central bank. It is significant that almost the first act of the Attlee Government after 1945 was the nationalisation of the Bank of England. We have privatised everything else, but we have not yet privatised that. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) for his views on this matter.
I do not feel that I am losing my Englishness or Britishness as we move towards closer union, whatever that may be. The French are not losing their Frenchness, and I have no fear that we shall lose our Britishness.
7.20 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: To those of us who were around in this House in 1972—a dwindling band, unfortunately—and who voted during the debates when the United Kingdom first acceded to the treaty of Rome, these further debates on the EC begin to have a familiar ring. One of the characteristics of those earlier debates was a certain lack of candour and clarity on the part of the pro-marketeers and of the Government of the day. There

513
were echoes of that in today's speech by the Foreign Secretary, particularly when he came to deal with economic and monetary union and with political union.
In 1972, there a was a failure to recognise that accession to the treaty of Rome was the first step leading to an act of union. The second step is economic and monetary union, and the third, intertwined with it, is political union. The EC is all about moving eventually towards political union—a European Parliament with full powers and a European Government of some sort. The exact form that that Government would take has not yet been thought through.
Since we signed the treaty, more powers have been transferred from Westminster and Whitehall to Brussels. I shall not talk about sovereignty—it is a dirty word these days, and a peculiarly British concept, we are told, relating to the House of Commons; and the Europeans do not understand it—so let us talk about political power. That power has gradually been transferred over the past 18 years—by 1992, it will be 20 years—from here to Brussels, largely to unelected, undemocratic bodies.
No British Government could now reimpose exchange controls, for instance. Our ability to control our trade policy is extremely limited, as the GATT negotiations have shown. Our ability to control agricultural policy is also extremely limited, as is our ability to restructure our industry without the—increasingly grudging—consent of Brussels.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) becomes Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he will find that one of his hands is already tied behind his back, and in a few years' time, if these proposals go through, the other hand will be similarly tied.
In the past two weeks, the City, having clamoured to join the European monetary system, has begun to clamour for interest rate cuts—when the pound is bumping along at the bottom of its EMS band and the Government dare not reduce interest rates. That restriction, although incomplete, is nevertheless a restriction on our control of monetary policy.
Substantial powers are still left: powers over taxation, over the Budget, over borrowing and over public expenditure. But if these plans for economic and monetary union go ahead, those powers will go too, transferred to institutions in the EC.
The single European currency is not about whose head, or how many heads, should be on the coinage. It signifies a single monetary policy, a single economic policy and eventually a single Parliament and Government. If that comes about, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will be bound hand and foot at the Treasury, trying to run British economic policy.
Whatever the technical merits of the ecu, and it has some—it is quite a clever dodge—it is a dead duck, not because of technicalities or economics but because the whole movement towards a single currency does not want 13 currencies: it wants one. That is why there is no chance, whatever the economic arguments favouring the ecu, of it succeeding. The single currency is not only about economics, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said; it is mainly about politics and political union.
The central bank will be a European Bundesbank, governed by the same sort of statutes as govern the real Bundesbank. Were it anything else, the Germans would
514
not agree to it. It is no good pretending that there will be control by Ministers. One of Delors's reports mentions accountability. The new governor of the central bank would have to go along to the European Parliament twice a year to give a report, but the idea advanced by some that the Council of Ministers or a Committee thereof could control monetary policy of the central bank shows that those who hold the idea are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
In this country, the Chancellor or the Prime Minister calls in the Governor to No. 10 or No. 11; interest rate policy is discussed; and the Government make the decision. In France, the governor is not even consulted—he may be now, but he certainly was not before. The Ministry of Finance decides. Even in Germany, when the political pressures were on, Herr Pöhl, who likes to see himself as the great custodian of monetary discipline, agreed to offer one west mark for one east mark—a purely political act. But when we have a European central bank, the 12 Finance Ministers will not be able to apply that sort of pressure. The bank will be even more independent than the Bundesbank.
With monetary union, there will have to be economic convergence. That will be disastrous for the weaker areas of Britain—of Wales, of Scotland and of the north of England—and for countries such as Spain, Greece and Portugal. A massive transfer of funds will be needed to try to restore the balance. Where will the money come from? The MacDougal report in 1977, issued before the enlargement of the Community, estimated that, in a federal Europe, about 25 per cent. of the EC's gross national product would have to go into its budget. The figure now is 1 per cent.
Who on earth will contribute these vast funds to facilitate economic and monetary union without its damaging the weaker regions? Will the German taxpayer pay? I doubt it, given all the problems of east Germany, eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Will French taxpayers pay? Perhaps the plan is to impose a Euro income tax—the final erosion of our ability to raise the income tax that we want to raise.
The final stage will be political union, but by then that will come easily. Once all these other elements have fallen into place, political union will be bound to come. Once economic control has been taken away from nation states, there will be political union. If this momentum continues, we may be in that position by the year 2000.
The Foreign Secretary was reported in The Guardian as having said that he would not agree to turning Westminster into a body resembling Oxfordshire county council. Perhaps that analogy goes too far. A better analogy is provided by the German Lander. If all these plans go through, British control over economic policy will be no greater than the control exercised by a German Lander or a regional assembly anywhere else. Those who favour these movements, and the Government, have a duty to be frank and to tell the British people what is happening so that they can make up their own minds. This matter must never again be swept under the carpet because that is extremely dangerous. It is not a technical or an economic matter, but is at the heart of political control. From my experience of debates, and of events in 1972, I am not optimistic that we will get the candour and clarity that we deserve.
7.30 pm
Mr. Michael Lord: I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in a debate that seeks to understand where we are going in Europe. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said that we should try to tell the British people where we are going. That is enormously difficult in view of the plethora of organisations that we have to discuss and the initials that must be understood.
Originally, the British people talked about the Common Market and sort of understood what it meant. Now the EEC has become the EC and we talk about single and common currencies, the ecu, the hard ecu, EMU, GATT, EFTA, NATO, the North Atlantic Assembly, the Council of Europe and the WEU. That makes it extremely difficult for anybody, except those with detailed knowledge, to understand what all those organisations are about and how they fit together. The Euro jargon would also be hilarious if it were not so serious.
I was amazed at some of the speeches that I heard in the assizes that I attended in Rome last week, along with several other people. Even allowing for difficulties in translation, my constituents would be hard pressed to understand exhortations such as:
"We must pool our legitimacies and co-ordinate our competences in order to embrace co-decision and subsidiarity."
Perhaps when 12 try to speak as one it is inevitable that it should become unintelligible to everybody. Perhaps we should say, "Come back Esperanto, all is forgiven." I joke to make a serious point.
Plainly, definitions of all those issues are vital not just to hon. Members but in plain language to the British people before any more firm and binding decisions are taken. Europe is in such a state of flux that it is difficult for anyone clearly to understand all the components and how they can best be put and kept together. Could the framework of Europe be wider and looser in the form of the framework provided by the Council of Europe on which I serve? The Council contains representatives from every European democracy and has already allowed into its organisation the states of eastern and central Europe. Should the framework be narrower and tighter in the form of the framework offered by the Community? That may be good for nations within the organisation, but it is much harder and takes longer to enter, and sometimes creates friction with other nations and blocs.
As the Warsaw pact disappears, perhaps we should pause and ask ourselves whether large blocs of any kind are still such a good idea. I do not intend to enter the complex debate about economic and monetary union and an independent European central bank because time does not permit. However, I find it quite frightening, bearing in mind that all these proposed measures are of such huge proportions and have never been tried before, that so many people who are for or against, and especially those who are in favour, can be so sure of the outcome. No one can be certain, and for that reason we should move forward with great care.
The conference in Rome last week was an organisational pantomime and an object lesson in Euro manipulation. We went there as a national delegation and were immediately put in political groups. We went with a framework for discussion but were told that a framework did not exist and that there would be a free-for-all debate. The draft declaration which was to appear at the end of the
516
conference was being produced as we arrived and the conclusion at the end of the conference was incidental. I greatly disagreed with the final declaration and I was one of the 13 who voted against it.
The one thing that came out clearly and strongly was that the relationship between national Parliaments and the European Parliament must be a partnership, not a power struggle. I see the national Parliaments as the senior partner. For that partnership to work, we need to establish procedures in our national Parliaments that will allow much fuller scrutiny of all Euro legislation before it is enacted and not afterwards. Somehow, we need to fit together like cogs on two interlocking wheels the parliamentary calendar and the decision-making processes of the two partners.
Although such a partnership may not immediately give more power to national Parliaments, it will certainly give them more responsibility and more confidence in what is happening. Only when the correct mechanism to link national Parliaments and the European Parliament is properly devised and in place will we be able to move forward in the right direction and at the right speed. Only then will the true and desirable balance of power and responsibility between all the parties involved become apparent. I urge the Government to undertake this organisational task with the greatest possible urgency.
7.34 pm
Miss Kate Hoey: We all know that Europe is living through a momentous period. The collapse of communism in the east, the unification of the two German states and the Gulf crisis create a new situation. At the same time, technological changes are speeding the globalisation of the economy and the environment. They are also reducing control of Governments over a future which in many ways, although hopeful, is more uncertain than ever.
I shall not use the word "assize" but will speak about the conference of European Parliaments in Rome which I attended last week. At that conference there was a great deal of discussion about what kind of Europe we wanted. Like many hon. Members, I had not spent much time thinking about Europe and discussing it, and at the conference I listened and learned a lot.
It is important for us to decide what kind of Europe we want and how it should be shaped. I want to see a Europe that is committed to reducing social inequality and underdevelopment. That means that it must set high social standards so that everyone benefits from the creation of the single market, which must have effective consumer protection. Such minimum social rights in every European country will prevent companies from competing unfairly through the lowering of employment and social conditions.
European economic developments must respect the environment. It has been said many times, but it is true and it needs to be repeated, that pollution knows no boundaries and does not respect nation states. Europe needs an environmental charter which sets out principles on which we can all co-operate and an environmental policy that will carry us forward into the next century. Europe must support its less prosperous regions. I think that there is a European term for that. At the conference I picked up all sorts of new European terminology. One of the things that came out of the conference was that we

517
want to get ordinary people in Britain to think about Europe and understand it. We must stop using terms which mean nothing to most people. Many hon. Members use terms without really understanding them. I should like to see them try to explain those terms to their constituents.
Our new Europe must actively co-operate with the emerging democracies and not shut the door of membership to the rest of Europe. It must also continue to develop co-operation and not forget the peoples of the third world. Above all, the Europe that we want must be democratic if it is to exercise such responsibility. It must also be democratically accountable and must promote the involvement of all its citizens in decisions affecting their lives. Central to that is the extension of majority voting on environmental and social issues so as to prevent progressive policies proceeding only at the pace allowed by the most backward. Unfortunately, in the past few years Britain has been backward on many social and environmental issues.
We must also consider how we scrutinise what is happening in Europe. Perhaps in that respect I am as much to blame as any hon. Member. However, most of the time we discuss European directives and legislation late at night. If we are seriously to examine that or any other legislation, we should not do so at such ridiculous hours.
The national Parliaments and the European Parliament should complement each other's work so as to ensure proper democratic scrutiny. There is no need for any new institutions to bring the Parliaments together. We have enough institutions and bureaucracies already. How do we make people feel more European? How do we become more European? As I said at the conference, it does not happen overnight. People do not wake up one morning and say, "I feel European." To be honest, most people in this country do not feel European. We must bring together not just parliamentarians but people, throughout Europe. The success of the European ideal depends on the children and young people of Europe, and we have to find ways to bring them together. More and more, young people are travelling and working abroad, finding that countries have similarities, that they get on with people abroad—and that what is abroad is not just a foreign country.
Here I stress the importance of my interest In the language which transcends all other languages—the language of sport. Here is a simple example of how undemocratic the European Commission is and this is why we need to democratise it. Recently, it offered £6 million—to be divided among the countries of Europe—to bribe their Olympic athletes to wear a European symbol at the Olympic games in Barcelona. If that suggestion had been properly discussed in a democratic body, the money would be going not to elitist sport, but to the grass roots, to school sport and school exchanges. If we think that an Olympic athlete, from whatever country, wearing a European symbol will change the attitude of young people towards Europe, we are wrong. If the money went instead towards enabling children to compete against one another and towards the development of European sporting teams, such as the recent golf team, we should be doing better. We must ensure the free movement of football players in Europe. We should bring together the people of Europe, not just at parliamentary level, because that will change people's attitudes and make them feel European.
We have to make it clear that this Parliament and this country cannot accept the taking away of any more legislative power from our national Parliament unless and
518
until the Community's decision—making procedure is far more democratic. It is wrong that control should be taken out of the hands of national Parliaments just so that Ministers can decide matters in secret meetings far from the public and from criticism by the Opposition.
We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand and say that if we do nothing Europe will go away and we can go back to how things were 10 years ago. Europe is there for us to be involved in and to work with. We must bring about the kind of Europe that we want for the future of our children and our children's children.
7.43 pm
Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member For Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) said that Europe is here. Of course it is—it has been here for thousands, if not millions, of years. However, the definition of Europe, and who will run it, is what is at stake in this argument.
After some difficulty, I have just got hold of the statute for the proposed central bank. It was delivered to me late this afternoon, and contains some interesting material. At bottom, it means that the powers of the House will be taken and given to independent, unelected bankers so that they can run our affairs. That is the unvarnished truth, at the heart of which lies a bigger question. In the course of doing that, our democracy, our consent to and the control over the co-operation that we want in Europe will be taken as well.
I acknowledge that the Governor of the Bank of England has put a reserve on the statute, but I hope and trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us that the Government have every intention of vetoing it, because there is no gradual progression down the route of this detailed statute. The issue is not whether we can gradually move down that path—the situation is clear cut against the background of the Ashford castle meeting in Dublin earlier this year and of the Delors committee report, and there is no doubt about where we are being taken—but that we have reached the point of decision.
Therefore, I look to the Government to make the position clear. I have asked on a number of occasions for a White Paper, as I did in the last business questions taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) as Leader of the House. I got pretty short shrift from him, as I have often done in the past when I raised the question of federalism, as long as five years ago. But these are fundamental questions not only about the position of the House but, more importantly, about the position of the ordinary man in the street and his consent to, and involvement in, the democratic government of the country. That is an even wider question, because it involves us as Members of Parliament and the trust that we hold on behalf of the people whom we represent. Therefore, we have no right to go down this path, as it would deny that trust. As Disraeli said, "Trust the people." We must do that in this context.
There is a broader background against which I shall set my remarks. Without any disrespect to the German people, there is an inevitable consequence—I can claim that that will be the case—of the fact that this bank will effectively cut through all the paper. I have some small experience on constitutional matters, and I know that the paperwork will not withstand the realities of power. In 1980–81, before I was elected to the House, I was advising on the Canadian provincial case for the patriation

519
proposals. The other day, I saw Mr. Delors at the assize. I said to him, "Please do not continue to allow us to be taken down this route, because we shall end up with 12 Quebecs."
There are enormous internal tensions within the Community, which will be made worse if the binding rules are imposed with the package of procedures that is laid down. Already there is potential for a civil war in some of the southern Mediterranean countries. When they are faced with the reality of their consensus being taken over by these independent bankers, and the paymasters—Germany and ourselves—resisting the amount of money that will be paid down that route, the problems will become more serious.
As I said to Mr. Delors, all those problems are avoidable now if only we would back off from this ridiculous progression towards what some people would call a historical necessity.
Mr. Bob Cryer: What did he say?
Mr. Cash: He said that he would see me again on another occasion.
Many questions arise from this draft statute, but there are even more questions for the Government to face. Everybody knows that I have been a completely loyal supporter of the Government since I came to the House. In addition, I have tabled motions, which have gained a great deal of support from Back Benchers, directed at this very question. I have no doubt that there is a similar feeling among Labour Members that we do not want to be sucked into a black hole. We want to make sure that we sustain democracy, not only in this country and our constituencies, but in Europe. As Bismark said, "Those who speak in grand terms about Europe are the ones whose motives I most suspect".
Without any disrespect to Germany, we must help it to understand how the enormous engine of power that it has at its disposal could be misused in the future. Only two nights ago, I had dinner with a most distinguished German journalist. He said, "For heaven's sake, make sure that this doesn't go through." He has written articles about this, and he knows that the reality is that, if Germany were to obtain the degree of control over Europe that would be the consequence of the proposed independent central bank, it would not be in the interests of Germany or Europe, and it would certainly not be in the interests of the United Kingdom.
I shall say no more about the farce of the European conference that I attended, where serious questions were raised about matters of consent. It had no legitimacy. I had hoped that we would have a serious discussion, but it was an opportunity lost—a tragedy.
The other day I had the pleasure and honour to be at Ditchley park, talking to some of the people whose opinions the House would respect. As the conference progressed there was an increasing awareness that the notion of subsidiarity is not on. That is because it begs the central question. Once one has arrived at the point of assuming that the higher tier—of which the independent central bank is to be the highest tier in terms of economic and monetary policy—is to be conceded, there is no need for subsidiarity. It eats itself up like Monty Python.
520
Subsidiarity would hand over democracy to a "judocracy". It would hand over to the courts intensely political decisions, and they do not want that. I cannot name some of the people to whom I have spoken on this subject. They are justices whose names I am not prepared to divulge at the moment. They have told me that they do not want subsidiarity incorporated in a treaty, because they could not cope with it. They would be asked political questions, and it is wrong for us to contemplate giving them that power.
Therefore, we must proceed not only with caution but with the confidence that we are talking about democracy in the EC, in the House and in Britain. If we were to depart from our conviction that that is what the House is all about, I for my part would say that we have brought Britain to a sorry state.
7.52 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: We all want the maximum co-operation in Europe, both east and west and, after the GATT negotiations, in countries outside Europe as well. The issue is not whether we are in or out of the EC, still less whether the Queen's head is to be on notes or coins; the real issue is whether we are to have new treaties, which will fundamentally transform our national life, our institutions and our relations with other countries, and on which British people have in no way been consulted. In fact, the opposite is true. The British people were promised precisely, and in specific terms, that that would not happen.
In preparation for the debate I looked up the manifesto issued by the Wilson Government at the time of the referendum in 1975. It said:
"There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed."
It is precisely that threat which we were told had been removed which will be reimposed by the new treaties.
The manifesto went on to say:
"Fact No. 2. No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament … The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests."
How can a British Minister veto anything if there is majority voting and political union? It seems that the voters were misled, if not lied to at that time.
If the powers of Parliament are to be given away, it is not just a matter for us. The powers of Parliament are the powers of the people, and how are they to be consulted? After all, we are just the temporary custodians of those powers. It is not for us to barter those powers away without consulting those who sent us here.
There are to be two conferences. The first is on political union. What does that mean? Will someone explain that to us? Do we want it? What are the advantages? Would it be durable? The conference will deal with political integration, the division of powers between EC institutions, and the balance of power between the member states and the EC as a whole. Some people are demanding rather noisily that Community competence should be extended to foreign policy, defence policy and security policy. There are voices urging a single federal or unitary state, which would have one seat at the United Nations

521
and in 100 other international bodies, a single embassy in foreign states and be endowed with single treaty-making powers.
Is there any suggestion that that is what our electors want? I have not had a single letter from any of my constituents saying that that is what they want. One thing is for sure and that is that the more power is centralised, the greater the loss of democratic accountability. There is no democracy anywhere in the EC. It is a no-go area for democracy.
The EC's executive is the Commission. Who elects it? There are no elections to that body at all. All its members are appointed. The legislature is the Council. It meets, works and legislates in secret. Ministers are not held to account in national Parliaments. They hide behind collective decisions, and they will do that more so if there is majority voting.
The European Parliament is elected, but it is not a real Parliament. A real Parliament legislates. The European Parliament does not. Its standing and reputation are poor. Few people show any interest in it, vote for it or know who their European Member of Parliament is. It can never be the focus for people's hopes and aspirations. If an attempt were made to turn it into a real Parliament, to give it more powers, where would those powers come from? They could be taken only from national Parliaments. A real European Parliament would imply a European Government, a centralised European state.
People say that we need not worry about that because we have the lovely principle of subsidiarity—that the centre at Community level should perform only those tasks that cannot be performed more effectively at the national or local level. That is all very well, but who decides what comes under subsidiarity? Hon. Members may have heard Beatrice Webb's explanation for the success of her marriage to Sidney. She said that they came to an agreement that Sidney would deal with important matters such as who declares war on China and she would deal with unimportant matters such as where the children were educated, where to go on family holidays, and that she would decide what is important and what is not.
That is true of subsidiarity. Where is the line to be drawn? There is no mention of subsidiarity in the treaties. It is not justiciable, and even if it were, who wants to give power to that court? It is a completely subjective judgment with no safeguard of any description. I could suggest where we should have subsidiarity. We should all have our own agricultural policy. Why should we have the monstrous common agricultural policy?
The second intergovernmental conference is on economic and monetary union. Let us not beat about the bush. We all know what that is about. The aim is a single currency, is it not? Do we want it? What are its merits? I have not heard anyone explain its merits. What I have heard is people saying that others want it—not everybody, not the Portuguese, the Spanish or the Greeks—but some others. They are determined to go ahead; we must not be left out. That was the intellectual argument of the Gadarene swine. Those who advocate a single currency must do better than that in explaining its merits.
It is commonly agreed that a single currency cannot work without convergence and that the economies of the member states must all perform in a similar way, with the same rates of investment, productivity, growth, interest and inflation. Some have even argued that they should have the same living standards. How is that to be
522
achieved? How will Greece, Portugal, and Spain attain convergence with Germany, and Britain as well, and when? What comes first—convergence or the single currency?
I am indebted to Lord Hesketh for informing me that European inflation ranges from 3 per cent. to 22 per cent.; short-term interest rates from 8·5 per cent. to 19 per cent.; budget balances from a 1 per cent. surplus of gross domestic product to a 17 per cent. deficit; and unemployment from 1 per cent. to 16 per cent. British inflation is more than 300 per cent. higher than that in Germany, where interest rates are 8·5 per cent. by comparison to 14 per cent. in this country.
What are we to do in those circumstances? Some argue that we should take our courage in our hands, take a leap into the dark, and have a sort of big bang into the single currency, and that somehow all the jigsaw pieces will fit. That is an unrealistic and irresponsible attitude.
Others argue that we must take that action for political rather than economic reasons. Monetary union would benefit the stronger economies. However, it would be disastrous for the weaker economies. Where countries have different rates of productivity, inflation and costs, adjustments are usually made by movements in the exchange rates. While separate currencies remain, any problems will manifest themselves as balance of trade deficits or surpluses, which will alert countries to what is happening. If there was only a single currency, that problem would initially be concealed, and the weaker and debtor economies would be progressively converted into depressed areas. Producers, finding their costs too high, would contract and then close their operations. People would be thrown on the dole, and populations, capital and wealth would be sucked away. Britain could become the Northern Ireland of Europe.
Karl Otto Pöhl last week cited an example in what he called a nutshell, and in what I call a laboratory experiment. I refer to the national economy of two countries with different rates of productivity, having a single currency introduced—the deutschmark in the German monetary union—and it led to the collapse of east German industry and mass unemployment——
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for 10 minutes..
8.2 pm
Mr. Anthony Nelson: The House will be disappointed that the hon. Member for Newham., North-East (Mr. Leighton) was stopped in his tracks as he was just getting into his speech. I acknowledge his strength of feeling about the importance of safeguarding Britain's democratic institutions, but we part company at that point. I was amazed that in his closing remarks the hon. Gentleman could pray in aid Karl Otto Pöhl.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) made an extremely good point about abandoning Euro-jargon. We should all endeavour to use language that our constituents can understand and not confuse the issues. Whatever happens, there should be an enhanced role for the British Parliament in considering European legislation and further economic and monetary union. In the atmosphere of fragile party unity that has broken out, I hope that my comments will be taken seriously by those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who do not share entirely my vision of the future Europe and Britain's part in it.

523
We should devote at least one whole day a week to European legislation, and not deal with it late at night. It must be given the priority and emphasis that it deserves. Also, it is ridiculous that Select Committees, which since 1979 have done such an excellent job of scrutinising and mirroring departmental responsibilities, do not do more every year consistently to scrutinise European legislation. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—to which I pay tribute, and whose chairman spoke earlier—invites the Foreign Secretary to appear before it in advance of attending Council of Europe meetings of Ministers. That is an excellent step forward, but every Select Committee ought, as part of its remit, to consider legislation emanating from Europe and report to the House, and we should examine that legislation more properly every week.
We should also grasp the nettle, however reluctant some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may be to do so, of establishing closer links with the European Parliament. It is ridiculous that one cannot easily telephone or visit it, or establish close connections there, given its role in legislation which directly affects the constituents whom we represent. Whether or not we agree with the grandiose plans for a new Europe, we should get the existing system, even with its limited remit, on a better footing.
I am a proponent of a single European currency. All our constituents want to be paid in a currency that is worth something, does not change in value from day to day, and does not cost them too much to borrow if they want to finance a house or business. Looking back over the past 10 years, recalling the volatility and gradual devaluation of our currency compared with the economic performance of continental currencies, which have enjoyed greater stability, lower inflation and higher standards of living, it is not hard to understand why my constituents would vote with their pockets. There is very real national self-interest in pursuing a single currency. If we deny ourselves the opportunity to link our currency with the great European economies, we shall be worse off for it. Going it alone is not an option. Much of the sloppy talk—for that is what it is—about retaining our democracy and independence belies the reality of the situation. What sovereignty or independence can there be if one's country is economically dominated by one's neighbour?
We shall not draw together right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House by promising implementation of the most grandiose visions of Europe, or by shutting the door on what some of us want to achieve in Europe. The way forward is a step by step, modular approach to economic and monetary union. I defy anyone to deny that that is not in our interests. We need to move forward on a step by step basis which is clearly in the interests of our constituents. For example, when we finally became full members of the exchange rate mechanism, there was a 1 per cent. fall in interest rates and mortgages. That was welcomed by all our constituents. If we moved on into the narrower band of the ERM and it brought a further 1 per cent. reduction in my constituents' mortgages, does anyone imagine that they would object? There can be no objection if such developments put money into their pockets, give them freedom of choice, and encourage a greater propensity to save than to spend. If from that we can develop statutes for an independent central bank and provide our currency with stability for
524
the future, that would be another great step forward. The Bank of England already enjoys a high degree of independence, and the proposals for it to play a part within a European central banking mechanism would give it greater strength rather than less autonomy.
If Britain emerged from the intergovernmental conference having either vetoed the reasonable proposals which have already been made, or with a form of twin-track approach to Europe which would put us in a siding rather than in the slow lane, that would not reflect the tide of events or the interests of our constituents. This is the time to take a step forward—I do not agree with the Opposition Member who said that it is a leap in the dark—and take our people with us. One has only to consider what happened on that dramatic day when east and west Germany merged their currencies at a wholly artificial rate of one to one. Was the result turmoil in the international markets? Did the big bang result in massive depreciation of the value of the German people's savings? Nonsense. It did not. The currency remained stable and strong, and has done so ever since, which shows that if one has the political courage and determination, and if one shows a willing people that it is in their financial interests, they will vote with their pockets. Let us do the same by encouraging a more favourable attitude towards the intergovernmental conferences.
8.10 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: If one looks at the Order Paper one will realise that, in theory, we are debating documents in preparation for two intergovernmental conferences this month. We are also supposed to be debating various decisions that have been taken in the Community during the past six months.
In practice, the debate is about something different. We are debating how power is creeping away from this Parliament, and from the people of the United Kingdom, to Europe. That is the real issue before the House this evening. Secondly, we are discussing the European Community and not Europe. Europe is a much larger subject than the European Community. Many hon. Members feel strongly about being Europeans. We identify with historical, political, cultural and religious developments that have taken place throughout the wider Europe over the centuries. It is an insult to some of us that some hon. Members have implied that one is only pro-European if one supports the European Community.
In his opening remarks, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that Government policy towards the European Community remains unchanged—only the style had changed; the content was the same. I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary fudged over several aspects of European Community policy, as did the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). One new fact which emerged this evening was the dramatic news that it is now the official Opposition's policy to support a federal Europe—albeit with reservations. It has been revealed for the first time that the Labour party is now voting for a federal Europe.
One Conservative Member said that there were divisions within various parties in the House about Europe. That does not apply to the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party. We are united, with one voice, in our attitude to Europe and to the European Community. We

525
are the only party which has resisted this nation's membership of the exchange rate mechanism right to the end.
What have we seen today? Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed before one of the Committees of the House that this nation is now in an economic recession. As business men—be it small, medium or large businesses—we want interest rates to be reduced as a response to that creeping recession. But the Government are no longer free to do so. They are trapped in the trap that they created by joining the exchange rate mechanism. Sterling is in the lower part of the band, and we are getting dangerously near to a situation in which no reduction can be ma de in our interest rates without breaking through the bottom of the band. That danger besets the Government's economic policy and could help the recession to increase its momentum in the United Kingdom.
The two intergovernmental conferences in Rome are about European monetary and political union. As regards monetary union, we oppose the single currency. Why? Because the creation of a single currency—we are not talking about a common currency—to replace the 12 national currencies will certainly mean that there will be controls on the elected Parliament of this country deciding its own level of public expenditure. There is no sense in electing Labour, Conservative or Unionist Members of Parliament once we have a single currency, because the public borrowing requirement affects the value of the currency whatever the colour of the Government who decide it. Therefore, the Government will have to be instructed by whomever controls the single currency in Europe as to the level of expenditure in the United Kingdom.
Political union raises the question of what kind of Europe we want. Do we want two different Europes? Do we want the Twelve within the European Community becoming more and more closely integrated, transferring more powers to Brussels and becoming more of a federal state? That is what the British Labour party voted for in Rome earlier this month—with reservations. Apparently a fax was sent by the Leader of the Opposition telling Labour Members to vote for a federal Europe as long as there were reservations.
Alternatively, do we want a wider Europe in which, instead of dismissing new democracies in the east as associated states—as the Foreign Secretary said—we shall involve them in a wider Europe, and give them a greater opportunity to advance their economies and democratic institutions? I believe that we should be integrating with the wider Europe, rather than establishing two degrees of Europe—first class within the European Community, with the poorer countries kept outside at a distance and treated as second-class citizens.
The Foreign Secretary referred to security and defence. He went out of his way to make it clear that they are now treated as two separate issues within the European Community, as we consider common policies on these matters. He specifically mentioned that considerable progress has been made towards a common security policy, and that only one country was withholding its support—the Republic of Ireland. As I represent Northern Ireland, hon. Members will understand that that comes as no surprise to me. In the final minutes of my speech, I shall mention certain specific matters that pertain to my part of the United Kingdom.
526
Terrorism is now an issue in various parts of Europe: in the Basque country, Italy, Germany and, because of the IRA, in Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as in the United Kingdom, both in Britain and in Northern Ireland.
We strongly believe in co-operation on security throughout Europe, and we want to see progress on that issue being made throughout the European Community. We already have limited co-operation on security with the Republic of Ireland, brought about by the introduction of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is interesting that the Republic of Ireland is not prepared to involve itself in a higher level of security co-operation within Europe. I suggest that one of the ways that we could get rid of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is to suggest to the Republic of Ireland that it should apply European standards of co-operation and security so that there will be no need to operate at a lower level of security than exists within the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Three subjects affect us in the United Kingdom, in our relationship with the Republic of Ireland, which do not refer to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but are the direct responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Transport, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I would like the Government to pursue them further.
The first is the European Court decision that the Dublin Government acted improperly by imposing a 48-hour rule upon persons travelling from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom to make purchases. The court ruled about six months ago that that was illegal. The Dublin Government have completely ignored the ruling of the European Court, and that embargo still applies on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic in the Christmas shopping period.
If there were freedom of movement across our border, as there is elsewhere in Europe, towns on the border such as Londonderry, Enniskillen and Newry would benefit from cross-border trade. The Dublin Government, however, ignore the ruling of the court, and, as far as I can see, our Government have failed to ensure that the Community and the Commission will bring pressure to bear on Dublin to abide by that decision.
The European Community is involved, through regional policy, in the question of road and rail communications between Northern Ireland and the Republic. I asked the Government to try to ensure that Dublin takes up the opportunity to accept £50 million from the Community to modernise the Belfast-Dublin rail link. Finally, I ask them also to ensure that the present unfair competition in the Irish sea between the Republic's shipping fleets and those of Northern Ireland is ended. The Dublin Government must be asked to stop financing the Irish lights for Irish boats when these costs must be borne by boats in Northern Ireland. That is unfair competition.
8.20 pm
Mr. Tim Devlin: I was somewhat disheartened by some of the earlier speeches. I believe that many of our younger citizens have a much more positive attitude to the European Community than some hon. Members: the generation now growing up in Britain [s much more accustomed to travelling abroad, eats a much wider variety of foods from different countries and has a

527
much greater vision of the world outside, thanks to television and other media, which bring the world to their doorsteps and into their living rooms every day.
I do not think that those young people believe, like the Foreign Secretary, that there are "ogres out there"; I think that they believe that Europe has many opportunities to offer, and involves none of the threatening, overweening bureaucracy that hon. Members often describe. They also understand that we already have a European Parliament, which they themselves elect. In my part of the country, we are well accustomed to the appearance of signs on our roads and railways telling us that funding for certain projects has come from the Community.
I think that it is entirely possible for us to separate fiscal and monetary policy, and that European monetary union—which, in my view, is now almost certain—will not necessarily lead us remorselessly to a united states of Europe. I do not know whether our younger people want a united states of Europe yet, but they certainly want peace and security, an end to customs duties, easier mobility between countries and the preservation of not only national but local differences.
At present, the EC has no role in peace and security; yet political union clearly implies the adoption of a common foreign policy, and the need to co-ordinate the defence policies of Community member states. Let me briefly set the matter in its wider context, as this is a sphere in which I feel that major progress is needed.
Before the intergovernmental conferences, we should try to prepare ourselves by placing the European question in a much broader perspective. In 1946, Churchill called for a united states of Europe, but at that stage he wanted to keep Great Britain out of it. It can, I think, be said that at the end of the second world war the small powers of Europe were driven together by the threat of the USSR and the overwhelming strength of the United States economy.
Europe, which had been the birthplace of a civilisation that now dominates the world, was a wrecked and weakened collection of former states that had been destroyed by the second German attempt at European hegemony. The Council of Europe was formed to prevent its fall to communism or, alternatively, its sell-out to American capitalism. France has been acutely aware of the cultural and economic threats that those two alternatives have posed throughout the cold war period; whereas Britain, unconquered this century and with its identity tempered by the crisis of 1940, still looked out, in 1946, into a world in which it still had an empire, a place and a role to play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) pointed out that the world has changed very much. That is true: the Soviet Union has now collapsed, and the United States—that former economic giant—depends on the Japanese and the Germans for the financing of its deficits. The states of eastern Europe are now free, and are lining up to join the European Community. What, then, is the role and the purpose of the Community in today's world? Perhaps we should go back to the vision of its founders, which is, in every way, as relevant today as it was in those very different circumstances.
In terms of global power, the world is now very much less safe than it was during the cold war. Then, every
528
conflict was regulated, suppressed or settled by the intervention of two enemies of overwhelming might. With the collapse of one super-power and the relative decline of the other, as measured against medium-sized adversaries, the potential for conflict has been heightened. Into the vacuum created by the change has stepped the clash of regional and religious identities, Islam and the Pacific rim trading nations being prime examples.
In 1951, when the European Coal and Steel Community treaty was signed in Paris, there was little that Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands could do to safeguard world peace through creative efforts commensurate with the dangers that then threatened it; yet that appears as the first commitment in the preamble. Indeed, there was little hope that any of the other aims highlighted in the preamble could be achieved—except in the last, the resolve
"to substitute for age-old rivalries the merging of their essential interest; to create, by establishing an economic community, the basis for a broader and deeper community among peoples long divided by bloody conflicts; and to lay the foundations for institutions which will give direction to a destiny henceforward shared".
How much more relevant, however, is that preamble today, 40 years on? Others have spoken today of the reality of a German-dominated Community; surely, though, the greater size of the organisation—as it expands to take in new members from eastern and central Europe—makes that even less likely. If Britain really wants to play its traditional role of preserving the balance of world power, it should take stock of its present position and make its dispositions realistically, according to what it perceives.
Three aspects of international policy are currently uppermost in our minds. First, there is the need for military capability outside the NATO area. Secondly, there is the need for a credible response to changing developments in the Soviet Union, especially now that the high-tech arms race is over. Thirdly, there is the need to resolve matters connected with international trade. In my view, European co-operation offers us the best possible solution to all three.
First, in the treaty of Rome, we have
"Resolved by thus pooling our resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty."
In the long term, we cannot continue to rely on the Americans to keep us safe. The United States today has roughly the same massive array of military obligations across the globe as it had in 1945, but at that time its share of the world gross national product, manufacturing production, military spending and armed forces personnel was very much larger than now.
Meanwhile, in power terms, the European Community has overtaken that so-called super-power. The combined regular army of the four leading members of the Community alone contains more than 1 million men, with 1·7 million in reserve. That is a larger force than the United States army and its reserves. Even at its present strength, once combined, the forces of the Community are very much larger than any other force in the world, except that of the Soviet Union. If the Community spent as much of its GNP as the Americans on its military might—that is, 7 per cent.—it would have the largest force in the world.
The European Community—which through the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act is committed to ever closer political union—has found its real power and effectiveness in defence and foreign policy stymied by the

529
neutrality of the Irish and the independence of the French. We are now being asked to consider the future of the Austrians within the Community, which will only do more to reinforce the neutral outlook that it might have to adopt.
The European Community's response to events in the Soviet Union leaves much potential unexploited. In simple terms, the disarmament that follows from the damping down of tensions can afford even greater savings to us all if the European Community can agree to standardise its weapons and purchase them in Europe. The French and the Irish may press us on the development of a common European currency, but we can press them for greater unity in foreign policy and military matters.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that we should nudge the Community forward on security issues. In fact, I believe that we should go further than my right hon. Friend is prepared to go. We could and should build up a European pillar of NATO and build ourselves up an independent out-of-area force. Some will undoubtedly say that that will mean a further loss of sovereignty. However, I must draw their attention to the difference between legal, effective and positive sovereignty and point out that we have already lost sovereignty over our military forces through our membership of NATO.
8.30 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), although he made an interesting speech.
This is the last debate before the two intergovernmental conferences and I am surprised that the Foreign Secretary devoted so little of his speech to them. The conferences are vital for the future of our country. On that matter I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), although I did not agree with much else in his speech. We both accept that, whether or not we decide to be part of economic and monetary union or of moves towards greater political union, there is little doubt that what comes out of the conferences will profoundly affect our country. Given the high stakes, it is all the more essential that the United Kingdom plays a constructive and positive role at the conferences.
With the demise of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) as Prime Minister, many of us are looking for changes in the Government's policy on the EEC. One has only to listen to the new Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary when he is not trying to put us to sleep and the Chancellor to notice that the tone has changed. With respect to the Chancellor, his style before the Select Committee was different from the strident, anti-European speech that he made to the Bruges group when he was seeking votes for the right hon. Member for Finchley in the leadership contest—different times, different styles. But if the style has changed, the substance is very much the same. The Government seem determined to push on with the hard ecu plan as an alternative to single currency proposals—the proposals accepted by the other 11 countries.
There has been considerable scepticism, not to say downright rejection, of those proposals by most of the countries, particularly the German authorities. It is true, and it will probably be quoted tonight, that the French Finance Minister said that the hard ecu could be of use. Ministers should note that he is saying that only as part of
530
the second stage, not as an alternative to a single currency. For the Government's strategy at the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union to carry any weight, they will have to accept the objective of a single currency, not as something that will happen overnight, but as a long-term aim to be achieved perhaps at the end of the century. They will have to accept that a single currency is inevitable and that there are strong arguments for it.
The drive towards a single currency draws its roots from the increasing integration of European economies. That point seemed to have been forgotten by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. That is what has changed between 1973 and now. European economies are far closer than they have ever been. A single currency is solidly based on the undoubted success of the exchange rate mechanism in providing greater monetary co-ordination and stabilisation within the Community. Above all, it is backed by 11 countries, including the two most powerful—France and Germany. Some form of economic and monetary union is bound to go ahead with or without Britain.
There are also strong, positive arguments why Britain should be part of economic and monetary union. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has poured scorn on the argument that it would reduce the cost of doing business. He should not underestimate that. More important, it eliminates exchange rate instability and provides a stable environment for economic growth. One may say that that is done by joining the exchange rate mechanism, but it is done much more effectively if there is a single currency. We shall have to turn around the United Kingdom economy and that is far more likely to be achieved in an exchange rate mechanism that becomes gradually tighter and eventually, at the end of the century, in economic and monetary union. It is not as likely to be achieved outside, with our currency subject, as it has been throughout the 1980s, to all the whims of international speculation and currency markets. I am surprised to hear arguments for that sort of freedom from Opposition Members. They used to come from Conservative Members.
There is also an important tactical advantage to be gained if the Government accept a single currency as a long-term objective. It would give the Government the credibility and standing to argue about complementary policies such as regional policies and the ability to use fiscal policy, as I believe that we shall be able to do even within a single currency. It would also give them credibility to argue about the role and accountability of the European central bank. One cannot argue about those details unless one is signed up for the long-term objective. Above all, it would give the Government the standing necessary to argue about timing. We can all agree that, with all the differences in inflation and productivity levels, our economy would need a long period of adjustment before it could converge. If we accept the principle of a single currency, our voice is far more likely to be heard when we talk about its shape and timing. If we do not accept that principle, we shall not be listened to effectively.
In conclusion, I want to remind hon. Members about the history of the argument that we have been having. In my political lifetime Britain has missed a number of boats. The most notable was the original creation of the Common Market. At that time, the leadership of Europe was on offer for Britain, but, because we thought that we were still a world power, we rejected the offer out of hand.

531
Both parties can be blamed for that. Yet, a few years later, after the shape of the EEC had been decided to our disadvantage, we had to come along, cap in hand, asking to join. Do not let us forget that. It was the same story over the exchange rate mechanism. Instead of going in at the beginning, we went in 11 years too late, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, and at the wrong rate. It is vital for the country's future that we do not make the same mistake over economic and monetary union. We must be in there from the beginning, helping to shape the course of events.
8.38 pm
Mr. Michael Knowles: It is interesting that the earlier tone in the debate seemed to be a solid paean of hatred towards the Community and its institutions, yet the last few speeches have been precisely the opposite. That reflects the balance within the House. There is a great difference of opinion in the country, which cuts across the parties. That is why it is such a dangerous argument for both political parties. It is a deep emotional issue.
Hon. Members who oppose the European Community ask, "Do you want a federal Europe?" Are they saying that we should withdraw from the European Community? Have they thought what the effect of that would be on our industry? Where would our place in the world be? They had their way from 1957 to 1972, and we did not join. We tried to form a counter-bloc in the European Free Trade Area, which did not work. We tried traditional methods, none of which worked. We joined because we had to do so, not because we wanted to. Brute necessity drove us to join, and we have suffered badly from not joining sooner ever since.
Do they believe that one country—the United Kingdom—will be able to impose its will on the other 11 members? The original point of forming the Community was to move away from a Europe where one nation tried to impose its will on other nations. The Community will not accept that. A country can join the Community, but it cannot stop it. We might be able to slow matters or divert them, but a policy of hostility, if we have not learnt the lesson already, will get us nowhere.
For several years there will be a two-speed Europe. If Britain does not want to be on the inner track, it can be on the slower outside track and a member of an associated free trade area.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Hear, hear.
Mr. Knowles: My hon. Friend says, "Hear, hear." Few people in this country will buy that argument.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned—this is one of the wonderful phrases that floats about the Community—a centralised, federalised system. Centralised and federal systems are exact opposites. Federalism is about the spreading of power. A country knows precisely where it is, and what are the powers of each function and level of government.
French politicians argue for a federal system to safeguard the position of France. If the Community follows the course that it has been following, there will be a centralised unitary state, which would not work. A case can be made for federalism, and in many ways we are already in that system. There are reserved areas at
532
supranational level, and demarcation is decided by the European Court of Justice. The Government are considering taking a case to the court because they believe that article 100A is being used too much, and they are right. We are in an embryonic federal system and there is no point in kidding ourselves otherwise.
The House, yet again, has missed the opportunity of setting up a Grand Committee on European Affairs, which would look forward at policy instead of our holding the odd one-day debate such as this. We, the elected Chamber, should follow the example of the House of Lords; we have missed the opportunity, which we shall regret.
I object strongly to the way in which the institutions of the Community have developed. The Commission is top-heavy—17 people is nonsense. I should prefer a more open system of election, even a weighted system run by the Council. Most objectionable is the fact that the Council, as a legislative chamber, meets in secret. It is the only legislative chamber in the western world that does so. That is unacceptable, and it must be changed. I would have expected the Government to be leading that argument.
When we joined the Community, our partners said that they wanted us to join because of our experience in democracy. If we had that experience, we have added nothing to Community institutions except the importation of Question Time into the European Parliament. Apart from that, we have been happy to leave the system to roll along. The system suits national Executives, but it should not suit national Parliaments, or Parliaments of any kind.
Once the single market is in place, we shall have more of a single market than the United States. It will be more integrated and will have more common laws than the United States. The scale of the United States' economy and its single currency has probably been the biggest factor in building that industrial giant. I am not frightened by the prospect of the single market. I foresee it a long way ahead and many arguments along the way.
I believe that it is possible to separate fiscal from monetary sovereignty. Fiscal sovereignty should be retained because a country can thereby keep control of its taxation, but why is monetary sovereignty so vital? Until just after the first world war, everyone was on the gold standard and no Government had control. Are we saying that those Governments were not sovereign? The argument is nonsense. An independent monetary policy can act as a strong fiscal discipline—West German experience reinforces that point.
We get so worried about our dealings with European institutions that we will not let local government deal direct with Brussels. Funds which are desperately needed in Nottingham and which have been allocated by the Community are sitting in the bank, and we cannot lay our hands on them. I am arguing this as a Conservative Member and the council is Labour controlled. The fear is not only control of local government spending but the idea that extra funding direct from Brussels could somehow subvert national sovereignty. That argument is gibberish.
I shall conclude by mentioning two countries, one of which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and which essentially are both third-world countries. The first is the Soviet Union, where we can see the collapse coming rapidly. The problem with the Soviet Government is that, although they can see that the command economy has collapsed, they are not prepared to move to a free-market economy. I am not sure whether pouring in aid will solve the problem. The key argument is

533
the ownership of land. In the Russian republic, it is proposed to restore private ownership of land. That is the key, because on that a private economy can be built. Without it, little can be done to help the Soviet Union.
The second country is South Africa. Ironically, South Africa and the Soviet Union contain all the raw materials that the world needs, but both are in deep trouble. Sooner or later, the Community will have to consider dropping sanctions. I heard today that it is projected that, next year, the mining industry in South Africa will lay off 10,000 miners in the coal industry and 40,000 in the gold industry. As dependants run at 10 or 12 to one, 500,000 people will have no source of income, because there is no welfare state in Africa. We must reconsider that problem.
I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to agree that we must seize the initiative in the Community by arguing for the democratic legitimacy of the institutions and for more open government. If one visits——
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must call on the hon. Gentleman to terminate his speech.
8.48 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: During the 1975 referendum on the Common Market, I stood on an anti-Common Market platform and made the point that there were no panaceas for this country inside or outside the Common Market. I stand by that today. However, I also believe that an appalling disaster would befall many of those we represent if we found ourselves alone outside the other countries of Europe.
Hon. Members from all parties have argued today that we should come out of the Common Market. They have not said that in so many words, but that is what they mean. Yet at this very time, Sweden, Austria, Cyprus and Norway are thinking of coming into the European Community. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that Europe is very different today from what it was in 1973 when we joined the European Community, and he was right to say so. There is a demand from other countries to join the European Community. The cold war has ended and it may now be possible to expand the Community to include the countries of eastern Europe.
The emphasis in the Community has changed considerably. There is now the prospect of a European Community that can be converted into something rather different. I know that Conservative Members will disagree, but I believe that there is a great opportunity for the development of democratic socialism in the European Community.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Oh yes?
Mr. Wareing: I am glad that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) agrees with me. That confirms my positive approach to the European Community. In future, the economy in Europe will be neither the Stalinist dictatorship economy nor the extreme Thatcherite market economy.
When the Foreign Secretary tells us that the Soviet empire is breaking up, I am worried that many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members such as the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), have not yet discovered that the British empire has broken up. From her speech at Bruges and from her speeches in Parliament in recent weeks, it is clear that the right hon.
534
Lady still harks back to the old imperialist slogans, and that she has forgotten that the world has moved on. She has not caught up with history.
Some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, have told me that we shall lose sovereignty. What did we lose when we signed the Bretton Woods agreements? What did we lose when we signed the treaty of Havana and joined the general agreement on tariffs and trade? Many of our problems now stem from the fact that we cannot reach an agreement at the Uruguay round. We are internationally committed to being a member of GATT. When we joined NATO, we lost sovereignty.
I ask my hon. Friends to consider this. If we remain outside an expanded Europe which contains within it a central bank and a single currency, what sovereignty shall we have? What chance shall we have to save the jobs of those who sent us to the House? How shall I be able to fight for the jobs of people in Liverpool if I have no access to funds? What shall we do if investors refuse to invest in Britain because it is the only country in Europe that does not have the single currency?
The hard ecu does not answer the problem. One of the assets of a single currency is that one cuts out currency speculation. If we had the hard ecu but there were still individual currencies within the system, there would still be speculation of one currency against another. If some. countries in Europe accepted the hard ecu, but also said that they would no longer use the deutschmark or the franc, there would be speculation against the British pound. That would occur because of some false idea of sovereignty which has long been extinguished.
There are problems of convergence. Some of my hon. Friends would say that there is a problem because Spain, Portugal and Greece have areas that are even poorer than Merseyside, parts of Wales and Scotland. That is right, but that is the challenge. Our areas will be even poorer if we are not involved with our friends in the European Community. There must be a regional policy in that convergence. Instead of British Foreign Secretaries and Ministers going to Councils in Europe and attempting to show how much muscle they have compared with the rest of the Community, they should fight for a positive regional policy. We might then get somewhere and we should prove—if the new Prime Minister wants to prove it—that we mean business by collaborating with our partners in the European Community.
Sovereignty and the old ideas of imperialism have ended. What sovereignty would there be for Britain outside the European Community when there was a central bank, acting as the Bundesbank acts now, within a powerful economy, and changing the rates of interest? Do hon. Members really believe that Britain could stand against those pressures? Of course it could not. It would be even more difficult then than it is now to stand against the Bundesbank.
There are problems in regional policy and I hope the Government will address themselves to one particular aspect of it—that of additionality. Funds are already made available by the Community for our regions. The problem is that the European Community provides funds for our deprived areas, but those areas do not receive them because they are used as funds to help the national Exchequer. That practice must end. If our people are to feel that they belong to the Community, they must have access to funds and not see them frittered away as

535
subsidies to the national Exchequer which, under this Government, is more concerned with giving tax relief to the very wealthy.
My hon. Friends talk about the absence of democracy in the institutions, but they do not say that we should do something about that by giving the European Parliament more powers, and by ensuring that it has control over the Commission and over the Council. If we are really internationalists—I appeal especially to socialists—we should work for a democratic, socialist Europe. That would mean a European Parliament that had such powers. All right, it means that some of our powers are diminished—so what? We were sent here to fight for the betterment of people's conditions. If that can be done only on an international scale, that is the way in which it must be done in future.
I should like briefly to address two problems that I hope the Minister will examine. Assistance is desperately needed in the Soviet Union. In Berlin, Soviet army men and women are already selling their uniforms. There is already the dribble of a migration problem that will become more and more severe next year when the Supreme Soviet passes a law allowing freedom of mobility for Soviet citizens. The situation is desperate. The problem will not end in Germany; it will find its way here.
I hope that the intergovernmental conference will discuss the problem of Yugoslavia and the possible break-up there. It is a severe problem, and it may create all sorts of problems for Yugoslavia's neighbours and will not simply stop in Austria or Hungary—it may cause severe problems for us as well.
8.58 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), I propose to concentrate my remarks on the negotiations for the common or single currency. I was interested to hear of the evolution of the hon. Gentleman's thoughts on this matter. I share several of his conclusions, although I have come to them by a different process of reasoning.
I should declare that I have an interest in a small business which deals in currencies, although it seems completely belittled by the scope of this discussion.
I welcome the fact that we have joined the exchange rate mechanism and that we did so with a 6 per cent. margin rather than with a 2·25 per cent. margin. On the Rome summit, we would have been better off deciding what was to go into stage 2 before deciding how long it would last. The procedural objection taken by the Government is likely to prove to have been correct.
On the behaviour of the Italian president of the conference and the impression of the discussions which took place at the summit and some of the remarks that have been made concerning the hard ecu proposals, I would say that in terms of political maturity and currency stability the record of this country in the past 300 years bears comparison with that of any other member country concerned. I hope that members will be willing to listen to our views at the coming conferences.
Treasury proposals for a hard ecu have several positive attractions. As a common currency, the hard ecu is likely to be harder than any single currency that can be devised at present. By ensuring that it could never be devalued
536
against other Community countries, its stable anti-inflationary character would be ensured. After the record of the past few years, it is easy to assume that a system based upon the deutschmark would be bound to be stable, but that was certainly not always the case in Germany, and nor is it bound to be in future. Less than 70 years ago, in the early days of the Weimar republic, inflation in Germany was worse than it has ever been in this country. For the future, the reunification of East and West Germany has been agreed on such an extraordinary monetary basis that it is likely to increase the budget deficit of Germany and inflation to a degree that is not easy to foresee at present.
It is also salutary perhaps to remind ourselves that it is less than 10 years since Italy and France had to pay 34 per cent. or 35 per cent. for short money. Therefore, if one is looking for a European common currency, there is considerable attraction in settling upon a currency which cannot be devalued against other Community currencies. If there proves to be an overwhelming demand for a single currency—like many right hon. and hon. Members, I believe that that could be the case—the hard ecu could prove to be a more attractive route to a single currency because it would be based upon choice rather than upon compulsion. Any fear of individual countries concerning matters of sovereignty would be lessened by the circumstance that each country could retain its freedom to issue its existing currency. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will attract much support for his proposals from member Governments attending the intergovernmental conference and from business and industry in this country. I hope that at least some of the ingredients of the proposals will be adopted.
The proposals would be an effective way of moving towards a single currency if several countries were prepared to adopt them and, in effect, to turn over in substance to a hard ecu common currency at a relatively early date. It must be recognised that unless that happened, and unless a substantial part of business and industry in individual member countries operating the system was prepared to turn over to the system, at least for large transactions, the system would be unsuccessful because of the transaction costs. Going into and out of a common currency would be so expensive and so beneficial to the banks that in the end it would be unattractive. The only way that it could succeed would be if there was a substantial measure of support from the countries concerned and from those carrying on a substantial part of their activities.
In approaching the issue of a single currency, we should be careful to avoid sentimentality and euphoria. It is important to avoid the sentimentality of thinking that, because the pound has served us well in the past, it should necessarily be retained for ever. The pound has served us well because it has generally kept its value and been widely acceptable to people and countries throughout the world. The same could be equally true of a common or single currency.
Similarly, I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) that there is a danger of euphoria in thinking that we should immediately accept that a single market must necessarily involve a single currency within a short time, regardless of the great differences between the member countries. We have differences in inflation from 2·5 to 22 per cent., in short-term interest rates from 8 to 18 per cent., and in

537
public sector accounts from a surplus of 3 per cent. of GDP to a deficit of more than 17 per cent. Faced with those differences, there is nothing which inevitably leads from a single market to a single currency.
I cannot believe that with a common or single currency things would be anything like my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) envisages or as is envisaged by hon. Members who paint bogey pictures of life under a central bank. I do not believe that the European proposals would lead to anything like that. There is no such thing as a truly independent central bank. The Bundesbank was shown not to be entirely independent when faced with the prospect of the reunification of Germany. Faced with reunification, the gentlemen in charge of the Bundesbank had to change their ideas quickly, and even under the system to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford referred, central bankers would still be subject to appointment by national Governments. There would still be national banks acting on behalf of the central bank. There is no great difference in kind between the governor of a central bank which has a relatively independent character and a collection of independent governors appointed by national Governments. There may be a difference, but it is not completely different in character from the position in the United States and western Germany. The landscape would not be completely changed; it would still be recognisable.
The House has already made a number of important decisions, giving the European Community and courts power to regulate European trade. The House took those decisions because it believed that, on balance, they were beneficial to this country. If the House thought that it would benefit the industry, the people and the economy of this country to have a single currency, that decision would not be any different in character from or any more irrevocable than those already taken in relation to the single market and the European Community.
Just as the House ultimately has power to say that if we go into the European Community we can also come out of it, it would have a similar power in relation to a single or common currency. The Bank of England would be there, albeit as an agent of the central bank, and it would not require a great step in legislative terms to put that bank back into its previous position. It would be an immense administrative nightmare, but it would be within the powers of the House and the sovereignty of this country.
I accept that decisions about a single currency are by no means easy, but I detect that, even since our entry into the exchange rate mechanism, there has been noticeably more interest on the part of industry and individuals in this country to the idea of a common or single currency, and that interest will grow. Although such a step would involve difficult decisions, just as decisions taken by the House about the European Community were difficult, it is within the proper discharge of the duties of the House to make such a future decision for the benefit of the people in this country. If it were decided that entry into a single or common currency would benefit the country, that would be a good decision and one which the House would be entitled to make.
I agree that before we can reach such a decision we need a much more careful analysis of the benefits of such a course and exact calculations of the benefit to trade, the savings of transaction costs and advantages to the
538
administration of affairs in this country and the Community. Such a decision could be arrived at only after an objective analysis of the benefits involved.
9.13 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have only a few minutes, but I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will bear in mind one or two points. The Secretary of State probably thought that he was reassuring some of us when he said that the Government's attitudes were unchanged after the change in Prime Minister, but he should be aware that some of us believe that we were in cloud-cuckoo-land before and that we seem to be in the same position now as a result of the Government's attitude on several matters. I hope that the Government will consider the dangers of going forward towards some new bright vision—we have had plenty of those—without remembering how many of the visions of the past have turned out to be disasters.
There will be a huge impact on jobs and factories in all our constituencies if the GATT talks break down—and if they do break down, the responsibility will lie almost exclusively with the EC's protectionist policies. We have presented the GATT conference with a paper on our 30 per cent. reductions. Even the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), who follows these matters closely, will be aware that the alleged 30 per cent. cut is no cut at all. It represents nothing. Nothing could be more insulting to our friends in GATT than to present a paper which includes no cut in agricultural spending. We claim that half the 30 per cent. cut has already been made and we say that the other 15 per cent. will be made up in additional subsidies. That is insulting and wrong.
Of course I appreciate that it is difficult to resolve this matter, but I appeal to the Government and to hon. Members to be cautious about taking another giant leap which may be well intended without realising that all the leaps of the past have turned out disastrously.
I hope that even my hon. Friends who are bankers will appreciate my second point—that we should not disregard the fact that many of the reform plans brought in to try to sort out grievances have resulted in making matters worse. I mention only expenditure on the common agricultural policy. Only this week we were told that, despite all the assurances about cuts in spending on that policy, it would increase to £23 billion in 1991, and that is almost certain to be an underestimate. In 1974 the policy cost £1·6 billion, so there has been a 1,400 per cent. increase. Since the Conservative Government came to power, there has been a 300 per cent. increase. That cash could be used to provide jobs in Lanarkshire, Southend, Nottingham and Liverpool. How can we possibly justify a policy which becomes continually more expensive?
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will bear in mind the terrible problem created by protectionism in the EC. We kid ourselves if we pretend that it is a free trade organisation. In almost all its activities, from industrial policy to dumping, far from being an open trading organisation, the EC is becoming more and more protectionist.
Fourthly, I hope that the Government will not just say that they are opposed to federalism, because even that would be a step forward in some ways. Under federalism, Parliament deals with some issues and some are dealt with

539
elsewhere; but now, apart from defence, there is no area of policy in which the Commission or the Council of Ministers cannot interfere by majority vote.
Fifthly, it is rather a waste of time to talk about the extension of majority voting—or its diminution—because the issue appears not to be in the Council's control. The Minister will know from the firearms control regulations that we discussed earlier this week and from a host of other such measures—and Mr. Speaker's Counsel has drawn attention to this—that the EC Commission has the power to decree that a directive is the subject of majority voting under article 100A, so there is nothing that we can do about it, however ridiculous the issue, unless we can persuade every member state to object to majority voting on First Reading. We are therefore powerless. We cannot say when majority voting should apply and when it should not. That stems from the Single European Act, which was rushed through this House in an all-night sitting. Meanwhile, the Commission is extending its power almost ceaselessly.
I hope that Ministers, particularly the Foreign Secretary, will bear in mind in the GATT discussions that Britain happens to be almost the largest exporter of goods in the world. We are always saying that the continent is a grand place and rubbishing Britain, and that argument is often used by the Opposition as a reason in favour of going further with the EC. According to the Library's information today, we export $5,700 worth of goods per head of population, compared with the Japanese figure of $3,400, the United States' $2,400, and France's $4,900. The only one of the big countries to exceed us is Germany, which is slightly ahead at $6,800.
If there is disruption of world trade, we shall suffer more than any country on the continent, with the possible exception of Germany. We are creating this problem by putting forward a bogus and meaningless proposal, saying that we are cutting spending on agriculture but at the same time increasing expenditure more and more every year.
My final point is extremely important. As some hon. Members have said, a single currency and central bank control may turn out to be splendid—but it may also be a great disaster. Hon. Members with Liverpool constituencies know about the problems of unemployment. What would they advise British people to do if by chance the transfer of economic and monetary power to a central bank created mass unemployment here? That is no scare story-some of us believe that it might be brought about by a single currency. If that happened, what could our people do? The answer is that they would be powerless, and they could not put out the Government or the Opposition. There is a great democratic issue involved here.
9.20 pm
Mr. George Robertson: This is an interesting and important debate and it takes place on the eve of the intergovernmental conference that is of major importance to Britain and the whole of Europe. We have heard interesting speeches and a wide range of views. It is invidious to single out speeches, but I should like to mention a few. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) made refreshing, new speeches. Those of us
540
who have sat through European debates for more years than we deserve welcome my two hon. Friends to them. They had much to say.
Even though it may be embarrassing for him, I should like to single out the interesting and brave speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). I have no doubt that that compliment will further blight his career. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) also made an interesting speech and mentioned that he had returned to the Back Benches. I understand from the public prints that he resigned from the Government in order to write books. Look at what that has done for the foreign Secretary. Perhaps such actitivies will again raise the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South up the greasy pole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made speeches of some distinction. I agreed with practically everything in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney and I shared the task of challenging the Government over their guillotine on the Single European Act, but we have taken different paths since then. Although we disagree on this issue, we agree on many others.
If there was one issue above all that brought the former Prime Minister to grief it was her attitude to Europe and on how Britain should play its role. She was fatally wrong on a series of issues such as the poll tax, interest rates and education vouchers if we are to judge by the pronouncement of those who abandoned her so quickly one and a half weeks ago. However, it was on Europe that she made her final and fatal mistake and she was judged, dispatched and displaced in two weeks. That was the lady who only eight weeks ago was cheered at the Conservative party conference with a chorus of, "Ten more years". It can all be put down to her attitude to Europe.
Just 15 days before the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) made his memorable speech, he defended the former Prime Minister on the Walden programme. It was an implausible effort, but it was still memorable because at almost the precise moment when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were at a press conference in Rome belabouring our European partners, the former deputy Prime Minister told Brian Walden:
"We've had occasions like this before. I've attended a number of summit meetings with the Prime Minister in which at this particular stage we have found ourselves expressing a sharply different view—an apparently sharply different view. You may remember that before we achieved the so-called Single European Act, that's the last major treaty between us, we had a summit meeting six months before where we appeared to be completely at odds with most, if not quite all, of our European partners. But at the end of the day, when we came to a Single European Act by hard negotiations we achieved a result which Parliament endorsed quite readily."
Leaving aside the fact that it was the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), that great European, who got the measure through by use of the guillotine, that is what the then Deputy Prime Minister said, although we now know that it was not what he was thinking. Let the House again savour what the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East said, for these words are the ball-bearings on which the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) rolled down into oblivion. He said:

541
"We must at all costs avoid presenting ourselves yet again with an over-simplified choice, a false antithesis, a bogus dilemma, between one alternative, starkly labelled 'co-operation between independent sovereign states' and a second, equally crudely labelled alternative, 'centralised, federal super-state', as if there were no middle way in between."
He went on, referring specifically to economic and monetary union, to say:
"We must be positively and centrally involved in this debate and not fearfully and negatively detached. The costs of disengagement here could be very serious indeed."
No one who heard that speech or read it will ever forget it. In his peroration he said:
"If we detach ourselves completely, as a party or a nation, from the middle ground of Europe, the effects will be incalculable and very hard ever to correct."
I quote those words not simply to extract the last juices from the convulsions that have swept away the iron lady, nor to dance on the grave of the false unity that only three weeks ago marked the public face of Tory party policy on Europe. I quote them because the House wants to know, and the country needs to know, where the new team, which is nothing more than the old team minus the manager, stands on what the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East rightly called "this desperately serious situation".
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman found that his task as Foreign Secretary and deputy Prime Minister had become
"futile, trying to stretch the meaning of words beyond what was credible, and trying to pretend that there was a common policy when every step forward risked being subverted by some casual comment or impulsive answer",
where stands the Foreign Office today? Is there a new policy or is the same pretence going on?
When the new Prime Minister was Chancellor, he was party to that pretence. Has he now seen the light? The Foreign Secretary was party to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman called a pretence of a common policy, so where does he stand now? The Minister who will reply to the debate, whose role in the downfall and replacement of his erstwhile mistress was significant—the St. Catherine's place plot—must have been party to the pretence. Will he recant and confess to us what the truth is and where Britain's real interest lies?
I ask those questions not lightly or frivolously, even when there is great fun to be had in doing so, but because, in its first week in office, the new team, liberated as it is from the risk of subversion
"by some casual comment or impulsive answer"—[Official Report, 13 November 1990; Vol 180, c.463–65.]
still seems mightly confused about where it stands.
Mr. Lord: Will the hon. Gentleman come to the heart of the debate and tell us why he voted for a united Europe last week in Rome?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman sat on the opposite side of the hemicycle of the Italian Parliament last week with his Conservative party delegation to the conference. Out of that delegation, three voted for the declaration that has become a point of controversy.
Mr. Lord: How did the hon. Gentleman vote?
Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the leader of the delegation, could not find it in himself to vote against it, but he did not vote for it—he deliberately abstained—and three Conservative Members of Parliament voted, along with every Tory
542
Member of the European Parliament, for the declaration. I voted for the declaration and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) did the same We did so with reservations that we expressed. This was a unique meeting. This was not a resolution of the House of Commons; it was a conference of European parliamentarians, using the rules of the European Parliament and. we voted for the general sentiments of the resolution—whatever the imperfections of the resolution and the procedure—believing that that conference was a chance and an opportunity for parliamentarians——
Mr. NichollsWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will simply reiterate the question, so he should sit down.
We believe that Britain should have its say in the discussions that are going on and the conference provided a unique opportunity. We made our view and our reservations on the subject known, and that is the end of the story.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: No, I shall not give way. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney talked earlier about the small change of the argument, I thought that he was referring to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), whose speeches we hear time and again, and which add nothing either to this Parliament or to the Italian Chamber of Deputies.
But the confusion in the Government goes deep and I give just one example to add to those given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). The new Chancellor of the Exchequer—the previous Chief Secretary, one of those who pretended that there was a common policy—went to the ECOFIN meeting in Monza on Sunday last. He briefed his fellow Finance Ministers and the press. What, therefore, is the new policy of the central issue of this debate?
The Independent on Monday morning said:
"Lamont hopes for a deal on EC monetary union."
But The Times said:
"Lamont reaffirms policy on currency."
The Guardian headline said:
"Lamont signals EC deal."
But The Daily Telegraph said:
"Lamont stands fast on monetary union."
The Financial Times said:
"Shift in tone on monetary union signalled to EC."
We are back again to the confusion described by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East—stretching the meaning of words beyond what is credible.
What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean—this is of central importance to what will happen in Rome next week—when last Sunday he said:
"I have every hope that the intergovernmental conference can reach an agreement acceptable to us and to our Community partners and which will keep us moving forward together"?
Mr. Hurd: It is simple.
Mr. Robertson: The Foreign Secretary, who comes from a stable of fiction writing, tells us that it is simple. Of course it is if one is writing fiction, but not if one is living in the real world.
In the same press conference the Chancellor said:
"We do not accept the need for the European central bank."

543
But since the European central bank is the very foundation of the EMU intergovernmental conference, either the Chancellor is stupid in pretending that there is any hope of getting an agreement or—despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton says, no one could be that stupid—it is yet another example of the meaning of words being stretched beyond what is credible.
The policy was no, no, no. Now it is perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, and it will be yes, yes, yes. Plus ca change, plus c'est la méme chose, as they say every day in Hamilton. This pantomime of twisted words and convoluted, confused policies would be a joke if the issue before us was not so deeply serious. Europe now faces some of its most important decisions for a generation, which will affect the whole way of life of the people of Britain and of the continent for many years to come. Our debate has highlighted the importance and gravity of the decisions that must be made.
The GATT talks, on which the world's trading relationships are based, and on which thousands of jobs and livelihoods depend, are in crisis—even as we debate. There may be a final climbdown. That will be something else for the fiction writers. The Foreign Secretary wrote an enthralling novel about life in the European Community. He is the only man who could possibly have written a thriller about the European Community. That must have given him the qualification for becoming Foreign Secretary, but obviously it was not enough to become Prime Minister.
In one week's time, two intergovernmental conferences will open, and they will determine not only the economic and monetary framework that will dictate the way in which this and future generations live, but set an ambitious pattern for the political dimension of the future Europe.
Even more serious is the situation to the east of our continent, as the Soviet Union enters an unprecedented winter of discontent. Its people are hungry, its shops are empty, and its ruling party is without authority. Its very integrity as a nation is in question. Its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, has—in common with only a very few figures in history—changed the whole world for the better, yet he is now being condemned and may even be replaced because he cannot get bread and meat on to the shop shelves.
The Foreign Secretary rightly drew attention to that situation, and to the need for the British people to rise to the challenge of providing food aid to the Soviets. Just as the German people have risen to that challenge, so too should the British people. A country that was once the greatest power in Europe and a nuclear super-power is now in a shambles, and after 70 years of being held behind barriers, its people are about to spill into the wastelands in considerable numbers, and that could easily overwhelm us.
If that were not enough to bring sobriety to us over the next few weeks, the newly democratised states of central and eastern Europe, whose freedom we have celebrated all year, urgently need our help. If their economic experiments are not to die, and if their bright new dawn is not to vanish in an anarchic tide of nationalism, we must extend the assistance which those new nations need, and which help to secure our own stability as well.
That is a tough enough agenda, but it is especially tough for a Government who will not tell us where they
544
stand on the monetary and political union intergovernmental conferences. I refer not just to EMU, which brought the Thatcher statues tumbling down in Tory committee rooms across the land, but to all the other key issues that must be resolved.
Is our future to be left to the bankers? Where do the Government stand on regional transfers? Are they willing to allow unprosperous areas of Europe to be swamped by the market place? What is the Government's view on convergence? Where is their agenda for the political union intergovernmental conference that was promised so long ago? Why are the Government so reluctant to address the essential and central questions of decision-making and accountability in respect of the European Parliament? Why is Britain alone resisting the social charter and so many of the features of European legislation that would be to our advantage?
The Tory party has discarded a leader whose European policies it viewed as a liability and a millstone. It was right, and it did Britain a service by removing the right hon. Member for Finchley. However, she left a bitter legacy. She stoked up the fires of isolationist nationalism on Conservative Benches, and they will not easily be extinguished—least of all by a new Prime Minister who has so long and strongly been identified with the former premier's failed Bruges approach. The Prime Minister will certainly be unable to mend the splits before next week's conference.
There is a new mood in Europe today. Those of us who were privileged enough to attend the conference of the Parliaments in Rome last week can testify that across the Community, from left to right, people are committed to a process of closer integration. We cannot wish that mood away. They do not think that that process challenges their own precious national identities, and neither should we.
Britain can be part of that process—shaping it, influencing it and moulding its outcome. We can choose to stay apart, uncontaminated. The choice is ours. What we cannot do is fool the British people into believing that their lives will not be for ever affected intimately by what others agree on.
I fear that this divided Government, with no clear vision, unprepared for the new mood, and criminally responsible for the fact that our economy is not prepared for what it is about to join, are no Government fit to face Europe's future. It is time that they stepped aside and allowed a Government with commitment to take over.
9.40 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): This has been a valuable debate and, despite a late start, 18 hon. Members have spoken. I shall do my best, in the course of my remarks, to touch on the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening remarks dealt with aid to the Soviet Union and to eastern Europe. He also touched on the Community's approach to the Gulf, progress on the single market, the European Free Trade Area negotiations and enlargement, as well as defence and security aspects of the future of our continent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), with his well-known persistence, remained to the very end of the debate, and asked a question about the

545
general agreement on tariffs and trade which I am delighted to be able to answer. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that some progress has been made today on services and intellectual property rights, and that the Council of Ministers authorised the Commission to continue negotiations on agriculture on the basis of a text tabled by the chairman of the negotiating group. Negotiations are again joined, and are likely to continue through the night.
A number of hon. Members referred to the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made a brisk but distinguished speech, and I should like to touch on that and on those made by the hon. Members for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whizney) and for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer).
The right hon. Member for Llanelli made it clear that an imposed single currency would cause massive damage in the weaker regions. He mentioned south Wales and Spain—two areas to which I am especially attached. That is precisely why the Spanish Government have shown interest in our hard ecu proposals, which would move with the grain of the market, and avoid the sort of dislocations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The majority of hon. Members have concentrated their remarks on the other IGC conference, and I shall do likewise. There will shortly be a debate on the intergovernmental conference on European monetary union, and although it meets on 15 December, that is a short ceremonial meeting which will deal with organisational matters only, and the conference will not begin its work until January.
The Government's starting and finishing point at these conferences is the House. Those of us who live and work here, Mr. Speaker, would not claim perfection for it. Nevertheless, few would deny that it has a unique ability to express and give voice to the concerns of those we represent.
No EC directive—whether it deals with asparagus, fishing, or standards for lawn mowers—can hope to slip past the beady eyes of the Scrutiny Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). If any constituency or group interest is affected, then the Minister concerned can expect to be bombarded by early-day motions, written and oral questions, speeches and visits. That is not always convenient for the Executive, but we believe that democratic accountability begins at home. No British Government who sought to undermine or diminish the House's ability to carry out its duty on behalf of its Members' constituents could claim to be taken seriously. That point was stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It is to the House that we must ultimately answer.
Why do we feel so strongly? The fact is that this country is the only member of the Community whose democratic institutions have not been entirely uprooted at least once in the past 100 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) pointed out. Consequently, hon. Members on both sides of the House feel pretty attached to them. As I have said, we do not claim perfection for the House or for our institutions, but we feel that they have an intrinsic value, which, with no sense of presumption, we commend to our Community partners.
546
Our general approach, then, is one of respect for this House and a hope that what is best about it may commend itself to our partners, coupled with a willingness to listen to other ideas, wherever they may come from.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am afraid not. I have very little time, and I should like to touch on speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
That, then, is the spirit in which we shall enter the intergovernmental conference. We believe that the institutional balance within the Community between the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament is broadly right, and our proposals are aimed at building carefully on those institutions. There will, of course, be a lot of high falutin' language flying about—the maximalist proposals in the Commission paper provide a good example. We shall consider proposals on their merits, resisting those that we dislike and pushing those that we want. I remind the House that no treaty amendment can be made without unanimity, and that the final outcome of our discussions will have to be ratified by the House.
I will outline some of the principal proposals that we shall be presenting. The first relates to subsidiarity, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Like any other organisation, the Community tends to build a momentum of its own, and seeks to extend its competence ever wider. We want to impose a simple test. The treaty already sets limits on Community competence, but, even where it allows for Community action, that may not be the right way of taking such action. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his opening speech, the first test should be whether it is necessary to act at Community level, or could things be done as well or better at national level? We would like that principle of subsidiarity to be built into the treaty and, of course, we shall also need an effective mechanism—not necessarily the European Court of Justice—to apply that principle.
Mr. Shore: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have very little time, and I want to cover a good deal of ground.
My next point concerns implementation and compliance. Of the 284 single market measures, two thirds have been adopted by the Council, but of the 107 requiring transposition into national law, only 20 have been implemented in all member states. The United Kingdom and Denmark have the best record, with fewer than 20 still to implement; half the member states still have more than 30 to implement, and one has more than 60. That is why we need stronger measures to ensure that Community legislation is implemented.
Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I will not give way.
We also need to ensure that laws are correctly applied As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks, at the end of last year more than 80 judgments against member states by the European Court of Justice were still outstanding. Only one involves the United Kingdom, whereas in one member state no fewer

547
than 37 adverse judgments still have not been implemented. We want to improve compliance throughout the Community, which may well mean enabling the European Court of Justice to enforce its judgments more effectively.
I will deal next with the question of democratic accountability. As the House will know, we have just improved our systems of scrutiny and we now need to see how they work. They may be susceptible to further improvements and some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and my hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles), have made suggestions in that direction.
Mr. Randall rose——
Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I shall not give way. I want to continue.
We believe that all the people in Europe are entitled to have these matters scrutinised at home. I am sure that other national Parliaments think about setting minimum standards of democratic scrutiny even if they do not want to go as far as we do.
That brings me to the question of the involvement of the House and other national Parliaments in the Community's affairs. I have already referred to scrutiny and we would like to see the House play an increasing role inside the Community. Already the Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Newham, South, has met its opposite numbers throughout the Community and there may be ways in which that can be developed and built upon.
Unlike the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who was thrilled, we were disappointed by the parliamentary assembly in Rome last week. We were disappointed that instead of making any practical suggestions for the involvement of national Parliaments in the Community's work, it presented us with a maximalist wish list. The House is interested to know—the hon. Member for Hamilton was not very forthcoming—about the role that Opposition Front Bench Members played at that meeting. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who led the British delegation, that there was a telephone call from Walworth road——
Mr. Robertson: Oh.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Someone else suggested that there may have been a telex. Whatever instructions were issued, whether from the national executive committee or from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Members for Hamilton and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) signed up to more executive powers for the Commission and co-decisions for the European Parliament and the Council. They signed up for a federalist charter which is not acceptable to the House or to the British people. I can do no better than to read from a press release issued by the hon. Member for Newham, South, who did not vote for the federalist charter. He said that what his hon. Friends signed up to destroys self-government and
548
"gives a diminished degree of democratic accountability at the price of giving assent to the emergence of a new European super state. No party or Government in the United Kingdom has any mandate to give away the rights of its citizens."
We agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Hamilton was not able to give us more of an explanation.
We will not be deterred by that. We shall be making proposals of our own after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, the hon. Member for Newham, South and others on both sides of the House. We shall be proposing ways in which the House and its Members can become directly involved in the European Community on behalf of their constituents. The role of the European Parliament can be pivotal to scrutiny and control of the Commission, not in passing new laws but in monitoring Community expenditure. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Gorton experienced great difficulty in making a distinction between security and defence. I despair of the right hon. Gentleman understanding even the most simple propositions.
Next year's Community budget will total about £38 billion in commitments. With that sum, we need to improve financial management in the Community, maximise value for money in the use of Community resources, and ensure proper accountability. To that end, at the intergovernmental conference we shall propose an enhancement of the role of the European Parliament in scrutinising the implementation of the budget and the discharge procedure and, in tandem, a streamlining of the organisation of the Court of Auditors to increase its efficiency and to extend the value of its work.
That underlines the Government's wish to play an active and central role in the debate on Europe's future, in contrast with the unprincipled approach of the Opposition—an approach which has consistently damaged the interests of Britain for the past 20 years.
Mr. Randall: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Randall rose——
Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I am not giving way.
I am delighted to see the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in their places, but I regret that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is not with them.
Mr. Randall rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat if the Minister does not give way.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Those three hon. Members are generally in their places like the three witches from Macbeth—bubble, bubble toil and trouble.
Mr. Randall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like your advice——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows better than that. I do not give advice on a point of order.
Mr. Randall: I should like your ruling. Is it because the Minister is making his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box that he is not prepared to give way? Can you make him——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that I heard a cry of "Bogus", and I am afraid that it was.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Those three hon. Members represent what I would call Labour party thinking on the matter. The hon. Member for Bradford, South, who represents what we can now confidently call a marginal seat—a Tory gain at the next election—has been consistent in his opposition to the Community, but he has not let that stand in the way of his ambition. He did not hesitate to take the place in Government vacated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), who resigned over the Community——
Mr. Leighton: No, he did not.
Mr. Garel-Jones: Yes, he did.
Having lost his seat in 1983, the hon. Member for Bradford, South crawled away to draw a Euro-salary before returning to the House to inflict on us his own special brand of sanctimonious claptrap. His constituency will be a Tory gain at the next election, and we very much hope that it will be "adieu" and not "au revoir" to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Bolsover has at least been consistent——
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Garel-Jones: I am not giving way to the hon. Member. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) wants to hear what is being said, he should invite his hon. Friends to listen.
Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Garel-Jones: No, I will not give way.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Gentleman should sit down.
Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Member for Bolsover is a Euro-phoney and a Euro-cynic, and he is led by a Euro-phoney and a Euro-cynic. The House expects the Opposition to answer the questions raised in Rome.
Mr. Allen rose——
Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 308.

Division No. 23]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Beckett, Margaret

Adams, Mrs. Katharine

Beggs, Roy

Allen, Graham

Bell, Stuart

Anderson, Donald

Bellotti, David

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Armstrong, Hilary

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

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Benton, Joseph

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bermingham, Gerald

Ashton, Joe

Boateng, Paul

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Boyes, Roland

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Bradley, Keith

Barron, Kevin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Battle, John

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

550

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Illsley, Eric

Buckley, George J.

Ingram, Adam

Caborn, Richard

Johnston, Sir Russell

Callaghan, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Kirkwood, Archy

Canavan, Dennis

Lamond, James

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Leadbitter, Ted

Clay, Bob

Leighton, Ron

Clelland, David

Lewis, Terry

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Litherland, Robert

Cohen, Harry

Livingstone, Ken

Coleman, Donald

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Corbett, Robin

Loyden, Eddie

Corbyn, Jeremy

McAllion, John

Cousins, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Cox, Tom

Macdonald, Calum A.

Crowther, Stan

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Cryer, Bob

McKelvey, William

Cummings, John

McLeish, Henry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

McMaster, Gordon

Cunningham, Dr John

McNamara, Kevin

Dalyell, Tam

McWilliam, John

Darling, Alistair

Madden, Max

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

Marek, Dr John

Dewar, Donald

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dixon, Don

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Dobson, Frank

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Doran, Frank

Martlew, Eric

Duffy, A. E. P.

Maxton, John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Meacher, Michael

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Meale, Alan

Eadie, Alexander

Michael, Alun

Eastham, Ken

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fatchett, Derek

Morgan, Rhodri

Faulds, Andrew

Morley, Elliot

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Fisher, Mark

Mullin, Chris

Flannery, Martin

Murphy, Paul

Flynn, Paul

Nellist, Dave

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

O'Brien, William

Foster, Derek

O'Hara, Edward

Fraser, John

O'Neill, Martin

Fyfe, Maria

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Galbraith, Sam

Patchett, Terry

Galloway, George

Pendry, Tom

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Pike, Peter L.

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Prescott, John

George, Bruce

Primarolo, Dawn

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Radice, Giles

Golding, Mrs Llin

Randall, Stuart

Gordon, Mildred

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Gould, Bryan

Reid, Dr John

Graham, Thomas

Richardson, Jo

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Robertson, George

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Grocott, Bruce

Rogers, Allan

Hardy, Peter

Rooker, Jeff

Harman, Ms Harriet

Rooney, Terence

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Henderson, Doug

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Rowlands, Ted

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Ruddock, Joan

Home Robertson, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Hood, Jimmy

Sheerman, Barry

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hoyle, Doug

Short, Clare

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

551

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

Wareing, Robert N.

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Snape, Peter

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Soley, Clive

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Spearing, Nigel

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Steinberg, Gerry

Wilson, Brian

Stott, Roger

Winnick, David

Strang, Gavin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Straw, Jack

Worthington, Tony

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

Wray, Jimmy

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Trimble, David

Vaz, Keith

Tellers for the Ayes

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. John McFall.

Wallace, James

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

NOES

Adams, Mrs. Katherine

Critchley, Julian

Adley, Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Aitken, Jonathan

Curry, David

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Allason, Rupert

Day, Stephen

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Devlin, Tim

Amess, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Amos, Alan

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arbuthnot, James

Dunn, Bob

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Durant, Tony

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Dykes, Hugh

Ashby, David

Eggar, Tim

Aspinwall, Jack

Emery, Sir Peter

Atkins, Robert

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Evennett, David

Baldry, Tony

Fallon, Michael

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Favell, Tony

Batiste, Spencer

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bellingham, Henry

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bendall, Vivian

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forman, Nigel

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forth, Eric

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fox, Sir Marcus

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Franks, Cecil

Boswell, Tim

Freeman, Roger

Bottomley, Peter

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fry, Peter

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gale, Roger

Bowis, John

Gardiner, George

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gill, Christopher

Brazier, Julian

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bright, Graham

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

Goodlad, Alastair

Browne, John (Winchester)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Buck, Sir Antony

Gorst, John

Burt, Alistair

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Butler, Chris

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butterfill, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gregory, Conal

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Carrington, Matthew

Grist, Ian

Cash, William

Ground, Patrick

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hague, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chapman, Sydney

Hampson, Dr Keith

Chope, Christopher

Hanley, Jeremy

Churchill, Mr

Hannam, John

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

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Harris, David

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Haselhurst, Alan

Conway, Derek

Hawkins, Christopher

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hayes, Jerry

Cormack, Patrick

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Couchman, James

Hayward, Robert

Cran, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

552

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Mudd, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Neale, Gerrard

Hill, James

Needham, Richard

Hind, Kenneth

Nelson, Anthony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Neubert, Michael

Holt, Richard

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hordern, Sir Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Norris, Steve

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Page, Richard

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Paice, James

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Patnick, Irvine

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hunter, Andrew

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Pawsey, James

Irvine, Michael

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jack, Michael

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jackson, Robert

Porter, David (Waveney)

Janman, Tim

Portillo, Michael

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Powell, William (Corby)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Price, Sir David

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Raffan, Keith

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Rathbone, Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Redwood, John

Knapman, Roger

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rhodes James, Robert

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Riddick, Graham

Knowles, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Knox, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Lang, Ian

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Latham, Michael

Rost, Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Ryder, Richard

Lee, John (Pendle)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lord, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Shelton, Sir William

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shersby, Michael

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Sims, Roger

Maclean, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McLoughlin, Patrick

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

McMaster, Gordon

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Madel, David

Speed, Keith

Malins, Humfrey

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mans, Keith

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Maples, John

Squire, Robin

Marland, Paul

Stanbrook, Ivor

Marlow, Tony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Stern, Michael

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Stevens, Lewis

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mates, Michael

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Maude, Hon Francis

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Sumberg, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Summerson, Hugo

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mellor, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Miller, Sir Hal

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mills, Iain

Temple-Morris, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mitchell, Sir David

Thorne, Neil

Moate, Roger

Thornton, Malcolm

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thurnham, Peter

Moore, Rt Hon John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Tracey, Richard

553

Tredinnick, David

Whitney, Ray

Twinn, Dr Ian

Widdecombe, Ann

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wiggin, Jerry

Viggers, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Wilshire, David

Walden, George

Winterton, Nicholas

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Wolfson, Mark

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Wood, Timothy

Waller, Gary

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Walters, Sir Dennis

Yeo, Tim

Ward, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Wells, Bowen

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.

Wheeler, Sir John

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of—

(a) developments in the European Community, in particular in view of the forthcoming European Council in Rome on 14th-15th December. with reference also to the White Paper on Developments in the European Community January-June 1990 (Cm. 1234); and

European Community Document No. 9431/90, the European Commission's opinion on the calling of the Inter-Governmental Conference on Political Union which was issued in accordance with Article 236 of the Treaty.

10.15 pm
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House may recall that the Minister made certain comments about me during the debate and failed to give the usual response. It is out of order for a Minister, either intentionally or casually, to mislead the House. The Minister suggested that I joined the Government to replace my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) who had resigned—in fact, he was dismissed—over the referendum. The House will no doubt be pleased to know that the Minister's claim was entirely false. I joined the Government more than 12 months after that incident, under a different Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker: That was not really a point of order, but if it has put the record straight, let us leave it at that.
Mr. Garel-Jones: If anything I said was inaccurate, I naturally withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: I think honour is satisfied.

ARMED FORCES BILL
Ordered,
That Mr. Derek Conway, Mr. Denzil Davies, Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes, Mr. Archie Hamilton, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Keith Mans, Dr. John Reid, Mr. John P. Smith, Mr. Keith Vaz and Mr. John Wilkinson be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:
Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee:
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
Ordered,
554
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

PETITIONS

  State Pensions
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I beg leave to present two petitions from my constituency. The first one was raised by Mrs. Hobden and deals with the problem of state pensions. In 1979, the link between state pensions and average earnings was broken by the Government and pensions were linked to the retail prices index, since when the value of state pensions has declined appreciably in true relative terms.
  The petition calls on the Government to link state pensions with the best available pensions in Europe at present. Many countries in Europe have far superior pensions to those in this country. People who have worked and contributed to state pensions all their lives deserve far better treatment than they have received under the Government in terms of pensions and social benefits such as free television licences.
  The petition reads:
  The Humble Petition of residents of Glanford and Scunthorpe sheweth That there is a need to improve State Pensions. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will restore the earnings link between pensions and average earnings ended in 1979 and bring state Pensions into line with the best in Europe.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray
  To lie upon the Table.

  Antarctica
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Morley: The second petition was raised by a local Greenpeace group, which has asked me to bring it to the attention of the House. It is signed by more than 2,000 people in the Glanford and Scunthorpe constituency arid calls upon the Government to support the concept of a world wilderness park. There has been a recent conference attended by all the countries which are signatories to the Antarctic treaty to discuss the future of Antarctica. The Antarctic Minerals Act 1989 paves the way for commercial exploitation of that last great untouched wilderness.
  Many people in this country feel that the Antarctic should be protected for future generations with a world wilderness park, and they call on the Government to support France and Australia, which have consistently campaigned for that objective.
  With permission, I shall read the petition:
  The Humble Petition of residents of Glanford arid Scunthorpe sheweth that there is an urgent need to protect the Antarctic, the last great wilderness left on Earth, from destruction by commercial development. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will support international efforts to declare Antarctica a World Wilderness Park.
  To lie upon the Table.

  MV Derbyshire
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of the loss of the motor vessel Derbyshire. I am sure that the 44 bereaved families will be as grateful as I am for this opportunity.
  This matter has been the subject of numerous parliamentary questions and of an early-day motion tabled by me and signed by more than 100 hon. Members. Sad to say, they were all members of Opposition parties, including Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland—despite the fact that some of the bereaved families are constituents of Conservative Members.
  The fact that 102 right hon. and hon. Members signed the early-day motion, however, is a sign of a degree of interest and concern which has been expressed and which continues to be expressed about the way in which the tragedy has been dealt with by this House and by others who have been involved.
  In September 1980 the largest ship lost to the United Kingdom registry disappeared with the loss of 44 lives—42 men and two women. The tragedy happened during a typhoon in the China sea which a vessel of this size should have shrugged off with great ease. I speak not as a layman but as a person qualified to make statements of this kind. I went to sea at the age of 15, was caught up by the war and spent all the war years at sea. I had sailed in almost every kind of vessel, from a scow to liners such as the Queen Elizabeth and the Queen Mary, trooping during the war from the United States to the areas of conflict. So I have some understanding of what happens to a vessel caught in that type of typhoon. In the Indian ocean and in the north Atlantic I have experienced such seas in what might be called rust-buckets of ships. Yet they overcame those tremendous seas, continued their voyages and returned to their ports without damage.
  The Derbyshire was a modern ship, the length of three football pitches, which suddenly vanished in the China sea. There are clear signs that vessels of similar construction and design have faults which, it has been pointed out, could have been the cause of the sinking of the Derbyshire. When she was sinking she sent no distress messages, although her aerial system was of a particularly reliable type. The lifeboat from the ship was found in the Luzon straits some weeks later and it carried its own broken boat falls, indicating that a sudden and catastrophic failure had occurred.
  The last message transmitted from the Derbyshire was on 9 September, but an air and sea search was not started until 15 September. A helicopter pilot sighted oil bubbling to the surface and forming a slick about a mile long. An analysable quantity was recovered four days later and at the Maritime Agency's research centre in Yokohama the sample was found to be identical to the fuel oil known to have been in the bunkers of the Derbyshire. On the strength of that, the ship's owners—Bibby Line—considered the ship to have been lost on 9 September due to the severe weather conditions created by Typhoon Orchid.
  556
  The Derbyshire had five sister ships which could have been inspected for clues and there were many men with experience of the Derbyshire and its construction. However, against the norm and despite the massive loss of life, the Government decided against holding a formal inquiry, apparently taking the view that there was nothing unusual in a 169,000 tonne deadweight bulker floundering in a typhoon which far smaller ships in the area at the same time had survived. The noble Lord Trefgarne conceded that that decision would be reconsidered if other evidence came to light. An abundance of evidence has since appeared, but the Government have persistently failed to hold an inquiry into the sinking of the Derbyshire.
  There is evidence of a relationship between the Derbyshire's structural faults and those of her sister ships. In March 1982, the sister ship Tyne Bridge left Hamburg in ballast and started to crack in an area just forward of her accommodation superstructure. Most of the crew were airlifted to safety and the vessel returned to the yard of Blohm and Voss in Hamburg. It is important to note that the Italian Classification Society diagnosed the damage to the Tyne Bridge as being caused by the method employed by Swan Hunter to effect construction in the region of frame 65.
  The Tyne Bridge was restored to the intentions of the original design which, presumably, had been departed from to facilitate ease of building after problems encountered during construction of the first of the six ships in the series, the Furness Bridge. Perhaps the "as built" plans for five of these massive ships were on board the Derbyshire. At any rate, they have vanished—the original building plans for the vessels have not been sighted and no one knows where they are. The original build of the Kowloon Bridge and the Derbyshire was altered and the original plans have not been brought forward as evidence that such a change had taken place.
  Inspection of the Tyne Bridge showed that the hatchside girders, which were also the inboard sides of the upper wing tanks, were carried through the bulkhead at which they had originally terminated. That was to strengthen the vessel which was inspected by the Italian authorities. Secondly, the metal in the affected area was thickened. Thirdly, a superior grade of steel—grade D—was replaced by grade A. Fourthly, to avoid connected members of different sizes setting up stress points, scarfing pieces and gradual integrating reductions were employed.
  Those are highly technical words, but in simple terms they mean that having found faults in the vessel the Italian authorities recommended some alterations to make the point at plate 65 safe. Those alterations were carried out. In the opinion of those aware of the situation, they were part of the original plans for the building of this type of vessel.
  Lloyd's was present at the time of the diagnosis and treatment and agreed with us. On the strength of what had been revealed by the damage to the Tyne Bridge, it suggested to owners of two sister ships—the Cast Kittywake and the Sir Alexander Glen—that they have the corresponding area of their vessels inspected. As a result, the vessels were given the same strengthening treatment as the Tyne Bridge. Further research showed evidence of damage in the area of frame 65 in all those vessels, even the strongest built and designed—the Furness Bridge. Yet the Government would not accept this as sufficient evidence to precipitate the inquiry which had been denied in 1980.

  557
  The Department saw fit to warn off the Liberian Maritime Authority when it sought information on the World Pathfinder, which used to be the Furness Bridge. I am sorry about all the complications, but for some odd reason the companies keep changing the names of these vessels, possibly to make it even more difficult to trace where a vessel is, the origins of its ownership and what voyages it has made.
  The Department of Transport report of 1986 mentioned that these ships could fail in the region of frame 65. That report was circulated to interested parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) asked a question about this, after which I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Transport asking him why, if the report was circulated to interested parties, that group did not include the most interested parties of all—the families of those who lost their lives on the Derbyshire. It is a scandal that they were not regarded as interested parties. Although we made numerous efforts to get the Secretary of State to circulate that report, the Government would not do so. When a report was finally released, it was different from the original one—and can only be considered to be a whitewash.
  This case has aroused strong feelings, not only among the families of the bereaved but in the National Union of Seamen, and the later integrated rail workers and marine workers trade union, which have urged the Government to come clean and open an inquiry so that the evidence from Professor Bishop, a highly respected naval architect, can be considered. His paper was not before the original inquiry, but it shows that it is highly probable that the vessel was structurally defective, and this could have led to its loss.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Member has maintained a keen interest in this matter on behalf of those who lost their lives when the MV Derbyshire sank. I am sure that he will agree that, as well as the relatives wanting to know the truth, it is in the interests of the shipbuilding industry internationally to establish through a reopened public inquiry whether the MV Derbyshire was lost as a result of structural failure. There is now sufficient evidence to suggest that that possibility must be faced.
  Mr. Loyden: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. One reason why the Government are resisting an inquiry into the loss of the Derbyshire may be that it raises the question of whether this type of vessel is safe. There is a belief that the design of vessels today is based purely on economic factors, or certainly largely influenced by them, and that some of the safety elements in their design are being overlooked for economic and other reasons.
  One of the most important aspects of this relates to the Kowloon Bridge, another sister ship of the Derbyshire, about which Tyne Tees television made a programme. The Kowloon Bridge went aground on the west coast of Ireland, eventually sank, and underwater photography has shown that she split all the way round frame 65. Again, all concerned—including, I am sorry to say, the Irish authorities—have resisted pressure to release information brought to light by the survey of that vessel.
  There is undoubtedly grave suspicion among the families, within the union and also among the public. A petition launched recently by the unions about the sinking of the Derbyshire has already attracted more than 20,000 signatures. It is not confined to one area of the United
  558
  Kingdom—families from all over the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, lost loved ones in that tragic event in 1980.
  I hope that the Minister has not come here today with a civil service brief which will prevent him giving thought to my comments and those of others on this issue. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has made representations in the past and no doubt will do so again in the future, and he has given an undertaking that a future Labour Government will have an inquiry into the sinking of the Derbyshire. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take into account the 10 years of pain suffered by the 44 families of those who died in the Derbyshire. I hope that he will also consider the complicated technical arguments which have raged backwards and forwards, but they in no way overshadow the human interest of the 44 families who continue to suffer the pain and anguish of having lost their loved ones. I attended a memorial service in Liverpool recently, and those families are still banded together. Almost all of them were at the service in St. Nicholas's church, known as the sailors' church, at the pierhead in Liverpool. Those families, every waking hour of their lives, suffer as a consequence of that tragic day in 1980.
  I hope that the Minister will not disregard that aspect, and I hope that he will give an assurance that every possible consideration will be given to what the Royal Institution of Naval Architects has said—and, more importantly, to the evidence of Derek Ramwell, a sea captain, and Mr. Ridyard, who worked on vessels in Swan Hunter's, and to all those others who have knowledge of the vessel and what preceded its loss—and thus come to the conclusion that an inquiry would be in everyone's interests.
  10.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I have only 10 minutes in which to reply to the very important Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), and to speak about a tragic event which, although it occurred more than 10 years ago, is still uppermost in the minds of the victims' dependants, who, I appreciate and respect, still feel deeply and sincerely about the incident.
  It might be helpful to the House if I gave a brief history of the issue. The oil/bulk/ore carrier MV Derbyshire set sail on 11 July 1980, from the port of Sept-Iles, Canada with a cargo of iron ore concentrates, bound for Japan. The last radio message from the Derbyshire was received on 9 September 1980. The ship tragically never arrived at her destination, and was presumed lost at sea with all 42 crew and two wives.
  No material evidence as to the cause of the loss came to light at the time, and it was thought then that a formal investigation under the Merchant Shipping Acts would serve no useful purpose. However, the Department commissioned extensive research into the ship's structural design and investigated reports of defects in sister ships.
  In 1986, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, a sister ship of the Derbyshire, the Kowloon Bridge, ran aground on rocks near Baltimore, Republic of Ireland. In December that year, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) announced to the House that a formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire would be held.

  559
  The formal investigation was held under the chairmanship of a wreck commissioner, Gerald Darling QC. He was assisted by three technical assessors—eminent experts in the nautical and naval architecture fields. The inquiry began on 5 October 1987, and concluded on 10 March 1988. It was one of the longest shipping inquiries in modern times. Besides the Secretary of State and the Department, the other parties represented at the inquiry were the ship's owners, the builders, the Classification Society, and the dependants of those lost in the tragedy.
  The inquiry was independent, wide-ranging, and thorough. The report of the formal investigation was released in January 1989. The court concluded that the Derbyshire was properly designed and properly built and that materials of approved standards were used in her building. The inquiry considered a number of possible causes of the loss. They included, principally, failure at frame 65—I will not attempt to deal with the technicalities—failure due to fatigue, torsional failure, brittle fracture, structural failure of hatch coverings, flooding, cargo liquefaction, loss of propulsion, explosion, and/or loss of steering.
  The court's main conclusion was:
  "The MV Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid, possibly after getting beam-on to wind and sea, off Okinawa in darkness on the night 9th/10th September 1980, with the loss of 44 lives."
  The report made three principal recommendations, and with the leave of the House I will set out the present position concerning follow-up action taken by the Department.
  The first recommendation stated that consideration should be given to ensuring a more immediate starting of marine searches when they are properly requested, wherever they occur. I can tell the House that that recommendation was examined carefully by Her Majesty's Coastguard. It considered that present arrangements in the United Kingdom are adequate, and also took the view that the International Maritime Organisation's search and rescue manual contained arrangements that adequately covered incidents involving overdue vessels.
  The second recommendation stated that consideration should be given to revision of the guidance to mariners for avoiding tropical revolving storms. I can tell the House that, of the two publications referred to in the report of court—"Meteorology for Mariners", and the "Mariners Handbook"—the latter now incorporates revised advice on the avoidance of revolving tropical storms.
  The third recommendation relates to the investigation of water drainage from ore cargoes. I can tell the House that research in this area is currently under way. An initial series of tests has already been conducted, on the Department's behalf, to assess the drainage and strength of a typical iron ore concentrate. A sample of concentrate has been distributed among the laboratories participating in the research. In addition to examining the concentrate's stability, the research should identify those tests which are best suited to predicting cargo behaviour, and lead to practical recommendations being made on methods whereby the risk of cargo shift can be reduced. I should add that further research is currently under active consideration.
  560
  The hon. Gentleman referred to new material. The loss of the Derbyshire has never been, and will probably never be, far from the public eye, partly due to the huge size of the vessel, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.
  The apparent new material relating to the loss of the Derbyshire came to light earlier this year. When any apparently new and important evidence comes to light after a formal investigation, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Transport to consider whether it is important enough to warrant the reopening of the formal investigation. An underwater film of one of the Derbyshire's sister ships, the Kowloon Bridge, and a research paper produced by the late Professor Bishop and his colleagues are currently being examined by the Department of Transport's marine accident investigation branch.
  I am sure that the House will want to know the latest position. I am advised that the marine accident investigation branch is hoping to put its report on the apparent new material to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport shortly. He will consider that report and then decide whether or not the apparent new material is important enough to warrant the formal investigation being reopened.
  I cannot go any further than that this evening. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we would like to come to a decision as soon as possible, but obviously we must wait for the report from the marine accident investigation branch. We shall give the House a decision.
  The hon. Member has been very diligent in the way that he has questioned Ministers about the issue.
  In his speech, the hon. Member for Garston mentioned the Bishop Price report and the formal investigation. It is said that the wreck commissioner excluded the earlier Bishop Price report. However, the transcript of the hearing shows that the wreck commissioner did not have a closed mind to the report's introduction. It was open to any party at the inquiry to seek to introduce it, at any stage in the formal investigation, if they considered that it might assist their case.
  That is an important point, and it is in the records. It was a formal inquiry, and we have to rely on that, rather than reports that were made previously. But earlier reports were readily available.
  Mr. Loyden: I cannot understand why the Government, if they are certain of their ground, do not allow that decision to be challenged by an inquiry. That is all we are asking. We are not talking about the conclusions of the inquiry, but we think that it would be proper for the Government to say, "Yes, we have this evidence", and that they are prepared to put it to be challenged by those who are justified in doing so.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. The deliberations of this Adjournment debate will be shown to my right hon. and learned Friend, so that he can bear that in mind.
  I thank the hon. Member for Garston and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) for their contribution to what is undoubtedly an important debate. As the debate has shown, considerable concern remains—I have had letters from hon. Members on both sides of the House—about the circumstances surrounding the loss of the Derbyshire. The marine accident investigation branch is examining two apparent new pieces of material

  561
  that have recently come on the scene, but I am not in a position to comment on the outcome of its consideration. Whatever the outcome, the scars of the tragedy that afflict those who lost loved ones will unfortunately remain for ever.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Train Passengers (Falls)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to require British Rail to publish the details and results of its investigations into the incidences of passengers falling from moving trains.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a matter for British Rail to consider. Information on such incidents is contained in the chief inspecting officer of railways' annual report.

  Aviation Fuel (Transport)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which emergency services were involved in the clean-up operation following the derailment and spillage of aviation fuel at the Isle of Grain on 28 November; what were the costs; and which body met each area of cost.

  Mr. Freeman
  Several organisations assisted at the scene of the accident, including the fire, police and ambulance services. I understand that the three emergency services were not directly involved in the clean-up operation and that they expect to meet their own costs. It is too early to know the total costs of the clean-up operation and the apportionment of them.

  Defence Planning and Emergencies
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the current responsibilities of the defence planning and emergencies division within his Department; how many full and part-time staff are employed; and what was the annual budget for each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The current responsibilities of the defence planning and emergencies division are to develop and maintain plans for the use of surface transport, including shipping, in crisis and war; to maintain departmental civil emergency plans and emergency facilities within the Department of Transport; and to manage Government-owned wrecks and their cargoes. Thirty-four full-time staff are employed, one of whom is seconded to another Department.

  The annual budget for the division over the past five years is as follows:

  £000s

  1985–86

  3,579

  1986–87

  3,432

  1987–88

  2,071

  1988–89

  2,795

  1989–90

  2,468

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the 10 worst purchases made by his Department in the month of October as measured against the Government's supply index.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not keep a central record of prices paid for each item purchased. Sample checks reveal that the prices paid for items on the GSI list were close to or lower than the GSI average prices.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the purchasing policy of his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department is bound by the Government's policy that purchasers should base all procurement of goods and services on value for money, including quality (or fitness for purpose) and delivery against price. In accordance with that policy, goods and services are acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Under EC rules, and the GATT Government procurement agreement (GPA) where appropriate, the Department is obliged to award relevant contracts in accordance with prescribed procedures aimed at avoiding discrimination on grounds, of nationality.

  Driving Tests (Wales)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving tests have been completed in each test area in Wales; and what the success rate has been for 1988, 1989 and 1990 to date.

  Mr. Chope
  I have asked the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the Rail Freight Distribution United Kingdom Business Review report from the board of British Rail; and when it will be made public.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the British Railways Board is currently considering the conclusions of Railfreight Distribution's review. Publication of the report would be a matter for British Rail.

  Vessel Modification
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the inspection of the vessel the Cam Spirit in December 1989 revealed about modifications to make her more manoeuvrable since her name was changed from the Silver Pit.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The name was changed nine months after the inspection referred to. A survey was not required, nor was one undertaken. I understand, however, that substantial changes have been made to improve the reliability of the manoeuvring system.

  London Underground
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the secretary of state for Transport if he will make it his policy to dismiss the chairman of London Underground unless London
  163
  Underground escalators at (a) St. John's Wood underground station and (b) elsewhere are in full working order by Saturday 15 December.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. A year ago we set London Underground Ltd. (LUL) a target of improved escalator availability, and LUL has made encouraging progress towards meeting that target. The target my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport set LUL in December 1989 was to increase overall escalator availability on the underground from 78 per cent.—1988–89 average—to 86 per cent. by 31 March 1992. Performance figures up to mid-September show LUL has achieved 84 per cent. I suggest the hon. Member discusses the availability of particular escalators with London Underground Ltd.

  Offshore Installations (Safety)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what modifications have been made to his Department's code for standby vessels for North sea operations since the Piper Alpha disaster.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. A revised code was submitted to the public inquiry which will he amended in the light of Lord Cullen's recommendations.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Election Documents
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) on how many occasions between 11 June 1987 and 31 August 1988 officers of MI5 were granted access to any parliamentary ballot papers and counterfoils and the marked electoral registers, returns, declarations and other election documents in the custody of the clerk of the Crown;

  (2) on how many occasions between 11 June 1987 and 31 August 1988 civil servants were granted access to any parliamentary ballot papers and counterfoils and the marked electoral registers, returns, declarations and other election documents in the custody of the clerk of the Crown.

  The Attorney-General
  None, as far as is known. Under parliamentary elections rules set out in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, ballot papers, counterfoils and certificates of employment on duty on the day of the poll are to be produced only on the order of the House of Commons or a competent court. No such orders were received during the period mentioned. All the other election documents specified by the Act are required to be open to public access, and applicants are not required to state their occupations or purposes.

  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will detail the precautions taken to prevent unauthorised access to parliamentary ballot papers, counterfoils, marked electoral registers, returns, declarations and other election documents in the custody of the clerk of the Crown under schedule 1, part V, rule 55 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

  The Attorney-General
  Parliamentary election documents are stored in a locked warehouse on a 24-hour 164
  patrolled secure Government site in Greater London. Only selected staff of the Lord Chancellor's Department have access to the warehouse and its contents.

  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the number of orders made between 11 June 1987 and 31 August 1988 under schedule 1, part V, rule 56 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

  The Attorney-General
  No such orders for production of election documents were received during the period stated. The only documents produced were those where public inspection is authorised under schedule 1, rule 57(2), of the 1983 Act.

  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions between 11 June 1987 and 31 August 1988 police officers were given access to any parliamentary ballot papers and counterfoils and the marked electoral registers, returns, declarations and other election documents in the custody of the clerk of the Crown.

  The Attorney-General
  Under the parliamentary elections rules set out in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, ballot papers, counterfoils and certificates of employment on duty on the day of the poll are to be produced only on the order of the House of Commons or a competent court. No such orders were received during the period mentioned. All the other election documents, including marked election registers, specified by the Act are required to be open to public access, and applicants are not required to state their occupations or purposes. Applicants stating themselves to be police officers were given access to marked election registers on five occasions during the period mentioned.

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General how many convictions the Director of Public Prosecutions has defended before the Court of Appeal in each of the last five years; and in how many of these he did not express a view as to the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

  The Attorney-General
  Records maintained by the Crown prosecution service do not include a total figure for the number of cases proceeding to the Court of Appeal as appeals against conviction. The total number of appeals against conviction heard by the Court of Appeal between 1986 and 1990 is set out in the table; the vast majority would have been conducted by the Crown prosecution service.

  It is only where exceptional circumstances prevail that the Crown prosecution service does not seek to resist an appeal against conviction; the number of such cases arising in each of the last five years could be ascertained only by a disproportionate expense to the taxpayer.

  Appeals against conviction heard by full court

  Number

  1985

  528

  1986

  534

  1987

  343

  1988

  420

  1989

  500

  1990

  1569

  1To 30 November.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions is proposing to make available to solicitors for the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bomings all the material relevant to the preparations of grounds for appeal.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has disclosed a substantial amount of material to the solicitors representing the appellants. Arrangements are being made for the disclosure of outstanding material in his possession, insofar as this is appropriate in accordance with the Attorney-General's guidelines on disclosure. This has been explained to those representing the appellants. Any further material provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions will be considered and disclosed, if this is appropriate in accordance with the guidelines.

PRIME MINISTER

  The Gulf (Ecological Consequences)
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment has been made of the ecological consequences of a military option in the Gulf.

  The Prime Minister
  On any realistic estimate, the main effect would be to increase annual world CO2 emissions by a small amount. Any environmental damage is undesirable, but the international community believes that the issues at stake are overriding. The way to avoid any of the consequences to which the hon. Member draws attention is for Saddam Hussein to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations and to withdraw from Kuwait.

  Staff
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names, duties and grading of those now employed in his office.

  The Prime Minister
  The senior staff currently employed in my office and paid from public funds are:

  Name

  Grade

  Position

  Mr. A. Turnbull

  Grade 2

  Principal Private Secretary

  Mr. C. D. Powell

  Grade 3

  Private Secretary—Overseas Affairs

  Mr. D. C. B. Morris

  Grade 5

  Private Secretary—Parliamentary Affairs

  Mr. B. Potter

  Grade 5

  Private Secretary—Economic Affairs

  Miss C. A. Slocock

  Grade 7

  Private Secretary—Home Affairs

  Mr. J. R. Catford

  Grade 5

  Secretary for Appointments

  Mr. A. T. O'Donnell

  Grade 3

  Chief Press Secretary

  Mr. T. J. Perks

  Grade 5

  Deputy Chief Press Secretary

  Mr. C. Fountain

  Grade 7

  Security Co-ordinator

  Mrs. S. Hogg

  Grade 1A

  Head of Policy Unit

  Mr. J. Mills

  Grade 5

  Policy Adviser

  Miss C. Sinclair

  Grade 5

  Policy Adviser

  In addition, there are currently 56 employed oh administrative and support duties. I am considering further appointments to my policy unit.

  Downing Street (Gates)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to remove the gates to the entrance to Downing street.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Cabinet Office will issue an up-to-date edition of the document intituled "List of Ministerial Responsibilities."

  The Prime Minister
  An up-to-date edition will be deposited in the Library as soon as possible after ministerial responsibilities in Departments have been determined.

  Department of Energy
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to retain the Department of Energy as a separate Department.

  The Prime Minister
  My present expectation is that work in the energy area will justify the retention of a separate department at least until the end of this Parliament.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Schools, Wandsworth
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much central Government resourcing will be used to facilitate the setting up of(a) the Battersea Park city technology college (b) the ADT city technology college in Wandsworth and (c) a new Church of England voluntary aided school in Sutherland grove in terms of (i) money and (ii) lost value by virtue of releasing sites at less than market value.

  Mr. Eggar
  In respect of(a) and (c), I would refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave on 3 December, at columns 14 and 15 respectively. No lease or sale of property for the purposes of establishing the institutions referred to by the hon. Member has taken place in either case. On (b), the total capital cost of the ADT college, Wandsworth CTC will be £11 million of which the Department's 80 per cent. contribution will be £8·8 million. The site for the college was made available at relevant market value.

ENVIRONMENT

  Trees
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in respect of the interim summary of the scientific review group on tree health in the United Kingdom; and when he expects the final report to be published.

  Mr. Baldry
  The terrestrial effects sub group report, "Air Pollution and Tree Health In the United Kingdom", will be published in March 1991. No interim summary will be published before that time. Copies of the final report will be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what were his Department's(a) best and (b) worst purchases made in the current month as measured against the Government's supply index;

  (2) what were the 10 worst purchases made by his Department in the month of October as measured against the Government's supply index.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department devotes considerable attention to its purchasing policy. It purchases a wide range of goods and services, which is only partly covered by the Government supply index. Where possible, note is taken of the prices obtained by other Departments, but potential suppliers are assessed against a number of other factors also, in order to obtain best value for money and take full account of environmental considerations. In the case of large or long-term contracts formal tendering procedures are followed. A great many current purchases are made at advantageous rates under long-term or call-off contracts negotiated some time ago. It is therefore not possible to make a meaningful comparison of present prices within the GSI against those obtained by the Department's purchasing procedures.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the purchasing policy of his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government's policy is that purchasers should base all procurement of goods and services on value for money, including quality, fitness for purpose and delivery against price. In accordance with that policy, goods and services are acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Under EC rules, and the GATT Government procurement agreement where appropriate, my Department is obliged to award relevant contracts in accordance with prescribed procedures aimed at avoiding discrimination on grounds of nationality.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail price index in the last financial year.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The outturn for my Department was only 6 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than in 1988–89—less than the increase in the retail prices index between those two years.

  Birds Directive
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider contesting the legal action pending against the United Kingdom for non-compliance with the 1979 birds directive.

  Mr. Baldry
  We recently learnt that the European Commission may bring forward a proposal for amending the relevant provisions of the directive. We shall consider what action may be required when the Commission has clarified its intentions, but we hope the matter can be settled without referral to the court.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will urge his colleagues in the Council 168
  of Ministers to recommend to the European Commission the reinstatement of the pests annex to the 1979 birds directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We intend to raise the question of pest control under the directive at the next meeting of the Environment Council.

  Connection Charges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has about the rate of increase in connection charges for new house building by each utility company since privatisation;

  (2) what discussions he has had with utility companies regarding the future level of increase of connection charges for new house building.

  Mr. Baldry
  Under section 79 of the Water Act 1989, a new system of infrastructure charges was introduced from 1 April 1990 for new connections to domestic water or sewerage services. The initial limits on these charges set by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales are increased each year in line with the retail prices index.

  Increases in other charges made by companies, including any other charges related to connections, are restricted to the increase in the retail prices index plus the K factors set by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the next 10 years and laid down in companies' instruments of appointment, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Both the K factors and the limits on infrastructure charges are now subject to review and amendment by the Director General of Water Services.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive a report from Victor Hausner and Associates on its research into the use of the urban programme in creating employment opportunities for black and ethnic minority communities in the inner cities.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend expects to receive the final report of this research project early in 1991.

  Local Authority Accounts
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sanctions exist against local authorities in breach of their statutory duty to produce accounts for audit; and what action he proposes to take against those in serious breach.

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

  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities which are currently in breach of their statutory obligations to produce their annual audit accounts, setting against each the number of years of default.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Audit Commission issued in February a list of 29 local authorities in England and
  169
  Wales which had failed to publish their 1988–89 statements of accounts before the statutory deadline of 31 December 1989. I am arranging for a copy of the list to be placed in the Library of the House. The commission's annual report for 1989–90 stated that nine of these authorities had still not published 1988–89 accounts by June 1990.

  Building Works
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish tables showing(a) the number of new buildings, (b) the amount spent on new buildings, (c) the amount spent on repairs and maintenance and (d) the amount spent on building renovation by his Department in each of the last five years.

  (1) Civil and Parliamentary Estates

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89 (iii)

  1989–90

  1990–91 (Forecast) (iv)

  a. Number of new building projects, including renovations and acquisitions (i) (ii)

  39

  37

  32

  b. Amount spent on new buildings, including renovation (£ million)

  211

  301

  194

  102

  102

  c. Amount spent on repairs and maintenance (£ million)

  147

  134

  169

  187

  166

  (2) Department of Environment (v)

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91 (Forecast)

  a. Number of new building projects

  2

  1

  3

  b. Amount spent on new buildings including renovation (£ million)

  4

  3

  2

  c. Amount spent on repairs and maintenance (£ million)

  20

  23

  27

  28

  29

  Notes:

  (i) a new building "project" is any construction costing more than £150,000 which is not wholly maintenance;

  (ii) number of projects in construction at 30 September each year; most projects span several years and therefore appear more than once;

  (iii) in 1988 occupying departments became responsible for funding new building projects in specialised buildings and single occupations;

  (iv) in 1990 occupying departments took on substantial responsibility for funding maintenance work. 1990–91 figures include fees in addition to works costs;

  (v) excludes PSA's own occupation but includes Property Holdings, Building Research Establishment and the occupied and unoccupied royal palaces.

WALES

  Private Streets
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consider means by which assistance from public funds could be provided for those people no longer benefiting from a related rate reduction to contribute to the frontagers' costs of making up private streets to a satisfactory standard.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. The apportionment of costs incurred in making up private streets to a satisfactory standard is a matter for the individuals and local authority concerned.

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that consultations with the public and with national health service staff in Pembrokeshire
  170
  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 5 December 1990]: The following tables show the information requested in respect of:

  (1) the building work funded up to March 1990 by the Property Services Agency, and thereafter by Property Holdings, as part of their responsibilities for the management of the Civil and Parliamentary Estates;

  (2) the Department of the Environment's own accommodation.

  The figures reflect the gradual transfer of responsibility for new building and maintenance services to occupying departments throughout the period. Information on the number of new building projects prior to 1 April 1988 is available only at disproportionate cost.

  regarding the proposed national health service trust shall be carried out objectively and independently of the health authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A decision on whether to approve a formal application for NHS trust status is subject to a statutory three-month public consultation period. In Wales this will be undertaken by the Welsh Office.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates and reference numbers of any circulars and other publications issued by his Department in respect of alcohol abuse since November 1980.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The following circulars on alcohol misuse have been issued since November 1980:WOC 8/89; WHC 89(14) Alcohol Misuse—20 February 1989
  WHC 90(78) Central Funding Initiative to Combat Alcohol Misuse in Wales: 1990–91 and 1991–92—5

  171
  December 1990
  WHC 90(79) Combating Alcohol Misuse in Wales: The Next Steps—5 December 1990

  The main publications sponsored and/or distributed by the Department are as follows:
  "Dealing with Alcohol Problems in Wales"—Health Education Advisory Committee for Wales, January 1987. "Improving Services for Problem Drinkers in Wales"—Alcohol Concern Wales, 1988.
  "Alcohol in the Workplace, A Guide for Employers"—Department of Employment—issued in Wales 29 November 1989.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a breakdown by counties in Wales of the distribution of funds out of the funding for projects to help combat alcohol abuse announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at his Department on Drinkwise Day in June; and if he will list the organisations receiving cash in each county.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Allocations have not yet been made. However, bids have been invited by 31 December 1990 and I hope to make an announcement early in the new year.

  Drug Misuse Patients
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish statistics for each Welsh health authority, for the number of drug misuse patients in Wales who receive treatment outside their district health authority areas.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not held centrally.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements have been made for giving directives to ensure that district health authority meetings will be open to the press and public.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Health authorities are subject to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. This requires a considerable degree of openness in their affairs. Advice was recently issued to health authorities on this matter; this was contained in section 11 of Welsh health circular (90)57, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are classed as homeless in(a) Ynys Môn and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of persons accepted as homeless during the September 1990 quarter is shown in the following table:

  Number

  Ynys Môn

  35

  Wales

  5,337

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the specific Welsh Office responsibilities(a) to which he will give personal oversight and (b) which he will delegate to each of his ministerial colleagues at the Welsh Office.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today announced the allocation of ministerial responsibilities within the Welsh Office. They are:

  Secretary of State, the right hon. David Hunt, MBE, MP: overall responsibility for the whole Department taking a special interest in economic matters, agriculture, fisheries and forestry, industry, Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales, energy and environment policy, Cardiff bay, Programme for the Valleys, financial and revenue support grant issues, European Community issues, constitutional issues, training and enterprise councils.

  Minister of State, Sir Wyn Roberts, MP: education and training, small businesses and rural affairs, Wales tourist board and tourism generally, transport and highways, Welsh language, arts, National Library and National Museum of Wales, historic buildings and ancient monuments, Countryside Council for Wales, national parks, conservation, general issues relating to public appointments.

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Nicholas Bennett, MP: health and social work, housing, water and environmental protection, local government, land use planning, urban affairs, including urban programme and urban development grants, enterprise zones, sport.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources are to be made available to Tai Cymru in the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In gross terms the resources available to Tai Cymru will be over £117·4 million. Taking account of associated private sector funding, the overall programme will be worth above £150 million next year. I am delighted that this will secure a further tranche of over 3,000 unit completions in 1991–92.

  The package of resources to be made available to Housing for Wales over the four-year period to 1993–94 will now total nearly half a billion pounds. The total allocation of over £480 million means a 36 per cent. increase from 1990–91 to 1993–94; by when the allocation will have virtually trebled in cash terms from five years ago.

  I am glad that Tai Cymru continues to make good progress in achieving strategic development of housing associations in Wales: by the close of its third full year of operation, and taking account of the provision that I have been able to make this year, Tai Cymru should have increased housing association dwelling stock by over a third.

  As regards current expenditure, I shall be making available £4·8 million in 1991–92—an increase of £3 million over 1990–91—to cover the costs of the special needs management allowance scheme introduced in Wales this year. The scheme is of particular significance in carrying forward our strategies for vulnerable groups in Wales. I intend that its impact should be kept under continuing review.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the level at which domestic rates in Wales would have to be fixed in 1990–91 in order to raise the same amount as under the community charge.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 December 1990, c. 148]: Owing to a typing error an incorrect figure was given. The correct answer is as follows. The estimated average rate bill per ratepayer for Wales in 1990–91 is £430 or 31 per cent. over 1989–90. For a detailed breakdown for each local authority, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 11 May 1990.

EMPLOYMENT

  Sheltered Placement Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the level of funding for the sheltered placement scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Around 130 written representations have been received on this subject this year.

  Local Office Closure, Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why he proposes to close his Department's jobcentre and benefit office in Amble, Northumberland.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service Executive Agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Training
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will examine the roles of further education colleges, some sixth forms, and youth training providers to identify and discourage any duplication or waste in staff, premises, equipment and operational costs.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training and enterprise councils are being given new responsibilities for business education partnerships and work related further education and will be closely involved in TVEI planning. The councils are well placed to address questions of efficiency and resource allocation, in partnership with local education authorities and independent educational institutions.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment if he will take frequent soundings of existing partners in education and training to ensure training and enterprise councils have the best available information on current and developing positions, and to give confidence to companies, schools, careers and managing agents that changes will be negotiated and not imposed.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department is in regular contact with education and training interests and their views are always taken into account. In addition, I expect training and enterprise councils to consult relevant organisations in their local area.
  174
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what incentives he intends to offer to encourage smaller companies to support human resource development through jobs with training.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are committed to encouraging all firms, including small ones, to invest more effectively in the skills which their businesses need. This commitment is fully reflected in the prominence given to this issue in the strategic guidance for training and enterprise councils (TECs). The TECs are responding with plans for a wide range of activities and incentives to support this objective, all of which are tailored to meet particular local circumstances.

  Training and enterprise councils and the national training task force are also introducing a new initiative, "Investors in People", which is designed to encourage all companies, including smaller ones, to appreciate the business benefits of effective training. Effective training and development will be formally recognised as "Investors In People". This will be important to customers and potential employees.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the latest weekly figures for net new business registrations.

  Mr. Forth
  During 1989, the latest period for which figures have been published by my Department, the number of businesses registered for VAT increased by nearly 1,700 a week on average. Early indications from data collected by HM Customs and Excise is that there continues to be a substantial surplus of registrations over deregistrations.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Labour and Social Affairs Council meeting held in Brussels on 26 November.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government welcome the result of this Council.

  The Council formally adopted the health and safety directive on biological agents, and reached a common position on a directive to control the use of asbestos at the workplace. A decision on an action programme in favour of the elderly was agreed as was a resolution on the comparability of vocational training qualifications.

  There was a lengthy discussion of the directives concerning part-time and temporary work, as proposed by the European Commission under its social action programme. A clear majority of member states had significant difficulties with the substance of the proposals; and they also agreed that article 100A of the treaty, as proposed by the Commission, was an inappropriate treaty base and that directives of this kind required unanimity in the Council.

  A large majority of the delegations agreed with the United Kingdom that rapid progress could now be made towards agreeing the proposed directive on the health and safety of temporary workers.

  There was also discussion of regulations concerned with the free movement of labour and social security entitlements for migrant workers. Some of the other member states had difficulties with the current draft texts.
  175
  The Council was given a progress report by the presidency on the social action programme as a whole, and the Commission gave a report on immigration and the Community.

  The Commissioner of Social Affairs introduced her report on implementation of existing EC social legislation throughout the Community. It indicates that the United Kingdom leads all other member states; indeed, we are the only member state to have implemented all the Community directives in the social affairs field.

  Overall, the United Kingdom was pleased to be able to agree to a number of sensible, well-prepared proposals in the areas of health and safety at work, training and improvements to the labour market. The Government will continue to oppose vigorously any EC legislation which would damage either job prospects in the United Kingdom and the rest of the Community or the competitiveness of our industries.

  This Social Affairs Council was a further example of how the rest of the Community often shares the views of the United Kingdom when they address specific proposals for legislation or action.

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 5 December 1990]: In 1989–90, the last financial year for which information is available, the annual cost to the Employment Department Group of fees and reimbursements was as follows:

  Fees

  Reimbursements

  (£'000)

  People appointed to:

  Public bodies

  307

  91

  Non-governmental bodies

  9,315

  834

  Other bodies

  —

  —

  This reply does not include information on the former Training Agency, now absorbed into the Department, which could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

ENERGY

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the purchasing policy of his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department follows the Government's policy to base all procurement of goods and services on value for money, taking into account quality (or fitness for purpose) and delivery. Goods and services are acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. My Department also observes EC and GATT requirements for Government purchasing where appropriate and encourages small firms to compete for its business.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what were the 10 worst purchases made by his Department in the month of October as measured against the Government's supply index;
  176
  (2) what were his Department's (a) best and (b) worst purchases made in the current month as measured against the Government's supply index.

  Mr. Wakeham
  This information is not available because my Department does not currently subscribe to the Government supply index (GSI). It spends only a comparatively small amount on items covered by the index so that membership would not represent good value for money.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail prices index in the last financial year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Gross running costs expenditure on my Department's administration was 37·2 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than in the previous year. During the same period the retail prices index increased by 7·8 per cent. The increase was mainly due to two factors. First, the Department was charged the full market rent by the then Property Services Agency for its new headquarters building, although the actual rent paid by the PSA, and hence the real annual cost to the taxpayer, was substantially less. Secondly, the Department needed to increase its staff to prepare for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales and to strengthen resources devoted to offshore safety.

  Connection Charges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has had from the house building industry regarding assurances on the future level of electricity connection charges post-privatisation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  About half a dozen letters have been received from the building industry on this subject.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the directors general of Ofgas and OFFER regarding the rate of increase in connection charges for gas and electricity for new house building.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None. The reasonableness of gas and electricity connection charges is a matter for the respective directors general.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the 75 renewable-sourced projects covered by the first order of renewables under the non-fossil fuel obligation giving the location, type of generator and capacity in megawatts in each case and identifying those projects which would have proceeded without benefit of the above market price available under the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Following is a list of the 75 projects citing location and technology. Some of the generators concerned have not given approval for the capacity of their projects to be published, and I am, therefore, unable to give project-specific information. The 75 projects that the RECs have concluded contracts with in fulfilment of their
  177
  obligations have an aggregate installed capacity that will build up to some 170 MW. Over half the 75 projects, and over two thirds of the capacity provided by those projects,

  Generator

  Project site

  Project type

  Wessex Water Business Services Ltd

  Maundown, Avon

  Hydro

  South West Water Services Ltd

  Plymouth, Devon

  Hydro

  South West Water Services Ltd

  Okehampton, Devon

  Hydro

  South West Water Services Ltd

  Okehampton, Devon

  Hydro

  Ralph Adams

  Chippenham, Wiltshire

  Hydro

  The National Trust

  Neath, Glamorgan

  Hydro

  Glen Lyn Generations Ltd

  Glen Lyn Gorge Hydro-electric scheme

  Hydro

  John Brooke & Sons Holdings Ltd

  Hudersfield, Yorkshire

  Hydro

  Northern Hydro Ltd

  Manchester Ship Canal

  Hydro

  Northern Hydro Ltd

  Coniston, Cumbria

  Hydro

  Northern Hydro Ltd

  Manchester Ship Canal

  Hydro

  Northern Hydro Ltd

  Manchester Ship Canal

  Hydro

  Northern Hydro Ltd

  Glenridding, Cumbria

  Hydro

  Northern Hydro Ltd

  Manchester

  Hydro

  R. J. Armstrong Evans

  Ashburton, Devon

  Hydro

  R. J. Armstrong Evans

  Tavistock, Devon

  Hydro

  Greta, Lady Wales

  Garnedd, Dolwyddelan

  Hydro

  Severn Trent Water Ltd

  Llanidloes, Powys

  Hydro

  Severn Trent Water Ltd

  Oswestry, Shropshire

  Hydro

  Ingleby (451) Ltd

  Gwynedd

  Hydro

  Welsh Water

  Powys

  Hydro

  PJO Wheeler

  Harbertonford, Totnes

  Hydro

  Hydro Energy Development

  Derbyshire

  Hydro

  Hydro Energy Development

  Derbyshire

  Hydro

  Derwent Hydro

  Milford, Derbyshire

  Hydro

  ECC International Ltd

  St. Blazy, Cornwall

  Hydro

  Merseyside Development Corporation

  Otterspool

  Landfill Gas

  NORWEB Generation & Land Fill Gas Ltd

  Todhills, Carlisle

  Landfill Gas

  NORWEB Generation & Land Fill Gas Ltd

  Fleetwood, Lancashire

  Landfill Gas

  NORWEB Generation & Land Fill Gas Ltd

  White Lund, Lancaster

  Landfill Gas

  NORWEB Generation & Land Fill Gas Ltd

  Stretford, Manchester

  Landfill Gas

  NORWEB Generation & Land Fill Gas Ltd

  Oldham, Manchester

  Landfill Gas

  NORWEB Generation & Land Fill Gas Ltd

  Swinton, Manchester

  Landfill Gas

  Biffa Waste Services

  Chorley, Lancashire

  Landfill Gas

  Landfill Gas Ltd

  Ambergate, Derbyshire

  Landfill Gas

  Landfill Gas Ltd

  Crich, Ambergate, Derbyshire

  Landfill Gas

  Shanks & McEwan (Southern) Ltd

  Brogborough, Bedfordshire

  Landfill Gas

  Shanks & McEwan (Southern) Ltd

  Brogborough, Bedfordshire

  Landfill Gas

  Shanks & McEwan (Southern) Ltd

  Calvert, Buckinghamshire

  Landfill Gas

  Shanks & McEwan (Southern) Ltd

  Martley, Worcestershire

  Landfill Gas

  Shanks & McEwan (Southern) Ltd

  Martley, Worcestershire

  Landfill Gas

  Cory Environment Ltd

  Stanford le Hope, Essex

  Landfill Gas

  Thomas Graveson Ltd

  Witton, Norwich

  Landfill Gas

  Thomas Graveson Ltd

  Worthing, West Sussex

  Landfill Gas

  BFI Packington Ltd

  Meriden, Coventry

  Landfill Gas

  Tarmac Econowaste

  Staffordshire

  Landfill Gas

  Blue Circle Industries plc

  Dartford, Kent

  Landfill Gas

  Blue Circle Industries plc

  Strood, Rochester, Kent

  Landfill Gas

  ARC Ltd

  Offham, Kent

  Landifll Gas

  ARC Ltd

  Tuttle Hill, Warwickshire

  Landfill Gas

  Heybush Ent. Development

  Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire

  Wind

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd

  Nr. Denholme, Yorkshire

  Wind

  Yorkshire Water Services Ltd

  Addinhan, Yorkshire

  Wind

  Wind Electric Ltd

  Nr Dalabole, Cornwall

  Wind

  PowerGen plc

  Richborough Power Station, Kent

  Wind

  Renewable Energy Systems Ltd

  St Mary's Isle of Scilly

  Wind

  UK Wind Farms Ltd

  Mydydd Cemmaes, Powys

  Wind

  UK Wind Farms Ltd

  Nr Ulverston, Cumbria

  Wind

  National Power

  Carmarthen Bay, West Glamorgan

  Wind

  Wessex Water Business Services Ltd

  Bristol

  Biogas

  Wessex Water Business Services Ltd

  Avon

  Biogas

  Haul West Ltd

  Kingsteington, Devon

  Biogas

  North West Water Ltd

  Lancashire

  Sewage Gas

  North West Water Ltd

  Tameside, Lancashire

  Sewage Gas

  South West Water Ltd

  Exeter, Devon

  Sewage Gas

  North West Water

  Manchester

  Sewage Gas

  North West Water

  Lancashire

  Sewage Gas

  Isle of Wight County Council

  Forest Park, Newport

  Waste Incineration

  Energy Supplies Ltd

  Byker, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Waste Incineration

  North London Waste Authority

  Edmonton, London

  Waste Incineration

  Coventry City Council

  Coventry, West Midlands

  Waste Incineration

  Elm Energy UK

  Wolverhampton, West Midlands

  Waste Incineration

  Fibropower Ltd

  Dias, Suffolk

  Chicken Litter

  178
  are attributable to new projects which would not have been able to go forward without the support of a NFFO contract.
  179

  Generator

  Project site

  Project type

  Fibropower Ltd

  Scunthorpe, Humberside

  Chicken Litter

  Hanford plc

  Piddlehinton, Dorset

  Pig Slurry

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ban those animal procedures involving LD50 and Draize tests.

  Mr. Leigh
  In respect of cosmetics products, the United Kingdom industry has eliminated LD50 testing except where occasionally required by certain overseas countries and has eliminated Draize testing with concentrated chemicals.

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the purchasing policy of his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department is bound by the Government's policy that purchasers should base all procurement of goods and services on value for money, including quality (or fitness for purpose) and delivery against price. In accordance with that policy, goods and services are acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Under EC rules, and the GATT Government procurement agreement where appropriate, my Department is obliged to award relevant contracts in accordance with prescribed procedures aimed at avoiding discrimination on grounds of nationality.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the 10 worst purchases made by his Department in the month of October as measured against the Government's supply index.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department is not a participant in the Government supply index scheme.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail prices index in the last financial year.

  Mr. Leigh
  Allowing for machinery of Government changes, gross running costs expenditure on Department of Trade and Industry administration was 8·7 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than in the previous year. During the same period the retail prices index increased by 7·8 per cent.

  British Satellite Broadcasting
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to whether the Director General of Fair Trading is examining the total financial liability faced by United Kingdom-based manufacturers and retailers currently holding stocks of British Satellite Broadcasting reception equipment and as to whether the Director General of Fair Trading is to examine BSB's compliance with its contracts with manufacturers and retailers.
  180
  Mr. Redwood
  The director general is aware of the position facing manufacturers and retailers holding stocks of British Satellite Broadcasting reception equipment and has received representations from, among others, retailers of this equipment. The commercial contracts between BSB and the manufacturers and retailers of its equipment are a matter for the parties concerned who may, if necessary, have recourse to the courts in the normal way in the event of any breach of contract. The DGFT is advising the Secretary of State on the wider issues of the merger.

  Corporate Registrations
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the growth of corporate registrations.

  Mr. Redwood
  A total of 1,032,200 companies were registered under the Companies Acts in Great Britain between 1980 and 1989. This compares with 521,000 companies registered in the previous 10-year period. The annual series since 1980 is as follows:

  Great Britain company registrations

  (thousands)

  1980

  69·4

  1981

  72·4

  1982

  87·2

  1983

  96·2

  1984

  97·9

  1985

  104·6

  1986

  117·3

  1987

  128·0

  1988

  128·9

  1989

  130·3

  11990

  104·6

  1 January to October.

  Further information can be found in "Companies in 1989–90", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  European Commission Financial Directives
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received any new proposals for directives on financial services for the European Commission in the past six months; and whether he has been notified of any forthcoming such proposals.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 5 December 1990]: There have been three main new proposals for directives on financial services from the European Commission in the last six months. In the insurance field proposals for the non-life framework directive (OJ No. C244; 28/9/90) and the insurance committee directive (Com. (90) 344—final) were submitted to the Council in September 1990. The Commission also put a proposal to the Council on 3 October for a directive on consolidated supervision of banks, replacing the consolidated supervision directive of June 1983.

  I have been notified of two major forthcoming proposals on which my Department will be in the lead. In the insurance sector, a proposal for a life framework directive is expected shortly. The Commission is also

  181
  expected to propose, before the end of 1992, a directive harmonising arrangements for investor compensation throughout the EC.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contact he has had with British Aerospace plc regarding possible redundancies.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 5 December 1990]: Mr. John Weston, the managing director of British Aerospace (Military Aircraft) Ltd. has announced that about one third of the expected 5,000 job losses will be achieved by natural wastage. For other employees affected by the decision, the company has announced a series of supporting measures including job shops, retraining, relocation, self-employment start-up assistance and early release terms. No announcement has been made giving any estimate of the redundancies which will be required.

HEALTH

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds are being provided in 1990–91 specifically to help people withdraw from benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1990–91, £15·5 million has been allocated to regional health authorities, which are responsible for developing local treatment services including those which offer help to people wishing to withdraw from benzodiazepines.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the national health service in the Doncaster district health service for staff who have been employed through agencies as nurses, operating department assistants, ancillary and other staff.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information derived from the 1989–90 annual accounts of the Doncaster health authority is as follows:

  Expenditure on Non-National Health Service (Agency etc.) staff

  £

  Nursing

  11,108

  Ancillary

  Nil

  All other staff (including medical and dental)

  184,417

  Expenditure specifically on the employment of operating department assistants is not collected centrally.

  For more detailed information I suggest the hon. Member contacts Mr. J. G. S. Smith, the health authority chairman.

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the 10 worst purchases made by his Department in the month of October as measured against the Government's supply index;

  (2) what were his Department's (a) best and (b) worst purchases made in the current month as measured against the Government's supply index;
  182
  (3) what was his Department's best and worst purchases as measured against the hospital supply index for the current month.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department does not subscribe to the Government or hospital supply index.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail prices index in the last financial year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Gross running costs expenditure on Department of Health administration was 9·0 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than the estimated expenditure in 1988–89, when the major part of the Department of Health's running costs were combined with those of the Department of Social Security in the appropriation accounts. During the same period the retail prices index increased by 7·8 per cent.

  Zimovane
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the price approved by his Department for the drug Zimovane manufactured by the company Rhone Poulenc; and how much is paid for that drug in other European countries.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The United Kingdom system controls the overall profit that companies make from the sales of all relevant products to the NHS; it does not approve the price of individual medicines.

  The United Kingdom price of Zimovane is £27·44 for 28 tablets. We do not hold price details for European countries generally.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of hospitals in England and Wales where patients and staff have been the victims of violence within the past two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. Appropriate security arrangements for the protection of both patients and staff are the responsibility of, and can best be determined by, health authorities in the light of their knowledge of their premises and the degree of access necessary for patients and visitors. We are making £20,000 available to update the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts' security manual which is the key reference document in this area.

  Mortality Rates (London)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing(a) the perinatal, (b) infant and (c) overall mortality rates by social class in the London regional health authorities in 1970, 1980 and the latest date available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: The exact information requested is not available. The available information is shown in the tables.
  183

  Perinatal and infant mortality by social class (as defined by occupation) 1980

  (Births within marriage only)

  Perinatal deaths per 1000 total births.

  Infant deaths per 1000 live births

  Social Class

  Perinatal deaths

  Infant deaths

  North West Thames Regional

  Health Authority

  All

  10·4

  10·4

  I-V

  10·4

  10·2

  I

  8·7

  7·0

  II

  9·1

  9·5

  III

  11·3

  10·6

  IV

  10·7

  11·8

  V

  12·8

  15·5

  North East Thames Regional

  Health Authority

  All

  13·1

  11·1

  I-V

  13·0

  10·7

  I

  10·5

  8·3

  II

  13·4

  10·7

  III

  12·2

  9·2

  IV

  14·3

  13·4

  V

  19·2

  21·4

  South East Thames Regional

  Health Authority

  All

  12·0

  11·5

  I-V

  11·9

  11·2

  I

  4·6

  5·4

  II

  10·9

  10·0

  III

  12·2

  11·1

  IV

  15·7

  15·6

  V

  14·8

  15·4

  South West Thames Regional

  Health Authority

  All

  10·5

  10·4

  I-V

  10·1

  10·0

  I

  7·1

  7·3

  II

  9·5

  9·8

  III

  10·5

  9·4

  IV

  14·3

  15·4

  V

  9·7

  14·6

  Deaths by social class (as defined by occupation) 1971

  Rates per 1,000 population for males aged 15–64

  Social class

  Metropolitan Regional Hospital Area

  Total

  I

  II

  IIIN

  IIIM

  IV

  V

  North West

  5·3

  3·9

  4·8

  5·4

  5·7

  7·4

  9·1

  North East

  5·5

  3·6

  4·9

  5·2

  5·6

  7·1

  8·5

  South East

  5·7

  4·0

  5·4

  5·7

  5·7

  7·9

  8·9

  South West

  5·5

  4·1

  4·9

  5·6

  5·9

  7·8

  9·8

  Deaths by social class (as defined by occupation) 1981

  Rates per 1,000 population for males aged 16–64

  Social class

  Regional Health Authority

  Total

  I

  II

  IIIN

  IIIM

  IV

  V

  North West Thames

  4·5

  3·0

  3·7

  4·2

  5·1

  6·1

  8·3

  North East Thames

  4·7

  2·9

  3·7

  4·3

  5·3

  6·5

  8·7

  South East Thames

  4·8

  3·2

  4·2

  4·5

  5·1

  6·4

  8·2

  South West Thames

  4·2

  3·0

  3·8

  4·4

  4·7

  6·0

  7·1

  184

  Perinatal and infant deaths by social class (as defined by occupation) 1988 (births within marriage only)

  Perinatal deaths by 1,000 total births

  Infant deaths by 1,000 live births

  Social class

  Perinatal deaths rate per 1,000 total births

  Infant deaths rate per 1,000 live births

  North West Thames regional health authority

  All

  7·5

  7·3

  I-V

  7·4

  7·2

  I

  7·2

  6·8

  II

  4·9

  5·3

  IIIN

  8·3

  7·3

  IIIM

  8·3

  8·7

  IV

  10·8

  9·3

  V

  111·8

  15·4

  North East Thames regional health authority

  All

  8·7

  7·2

  I-V

  8·5

  6·9

  I

  7·9

  7·0

  II

  8·3

  6·1

  IIIN

  7·4

  6·4

  IIIM

  8·4

  6·5

  IV

  10·5

  8·8

  V

  19·6

  111·0

  South East Thames regional health authority

  All

  8·1

  7·9

  I-V

  8·1

  7·8

  I

  10·1

  6·5

  II

  5·8

  6·4

  IIIN

  8·4

  7·7

  IIIM

  8·8

  7·8

  IV

  10·5

  11·2

  V

  18·7

  112·4

  South West Thames regional health authority

  All

  7·3

  8·0

  I-V

  7·1

  7·8

  I

  14·0

  7·6

  II

  7·0

  6·0

  IIIN

  6·7

  6·7

  IIIM

  7·8

  8·4

  IV

  10·5

  12·2

  V

  18·4

  114·5

  1 Indicates rates calculated from less than 20 deaths to warn the user that their reliability as a measure may be affected by the small number of events.

DEFENCE

  The Gulf
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service men who have not attained the age of 18 years have been posted to the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Numbers of service personnel under the age of 18 currently in the Gulf are as follows:

  Number

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  37

  Army

  118

  Royal Air Force

  2

  1 Total figure according to returns received to date from units serving in the Gulf.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel went absent without leave for each year since 1986, giving categories showing the approximate lengths of time for which people have been absent, the number of absentees below the ages of 21 and 18 years, and the varying levels of absenteeism in different commands and trades.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 November 1990]: The information which is held centrally for each of the three services is as follows:

  Royal Navy

  Approximate length of absence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Under 1 month

  52

  58

  66

  1 to 3 months

  4

  13

  7

  3 to 6 months

  2

  3

  7

  6 to 12 months

  2

  5

  5

  1 to 2 years

  —

  —

  3

  2 years+

  2

  —

  —

  Total

  62

  79

  88

  Absentees Under 18

  30

  24

  39

  Absentees Under 21

  2

  10

  7

  Note: Records of absentees by Command or trade are not held.

  Army

  Approximate length of absence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  3 weeks to 3 months

  251

  239

  284

  3 to 6 months

  87

  129

  157

  6 to 12 months

  57

  86

  164

  1 to 2 years

  48

  66

  140

  2 years+

  65

  51

  —

  Total

  508

  571

  745

  Absentees Under 18

  26

  39

  38

  Absentees Under 21

  262

  313

  450

  Record of absentees by Command

  Last recorded theatre

  1987

  1988

  1989

  BAOR

  161

  214

  241

  Cyprus

  5

  7

  3

  Gibraltar

  2

  1

  5

  Hong Kong

  —

  2

  1

  Others

  13

  8

  12

  United Kingdom

  327

  339

  483

  Total

  508

  571

  745

  186
  Note All figures exclude those who went absent in previous years.

  A breakdown of total absentees by career employment qualification is as follows

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Army Air Corps Soldier (Clerk)

  —

  —

  1

  Army Air Corps Soldier

  3

  —

  1

  Air Survey Technician

  —

  —

  1

  Ammunition Technician

  —

  1

  —

  Amphibious Engineer

  —

  —

  5

  Armoured Engineer

  —

  1

  —

  Armourer

  —

  —

  1

  Bandsman

  1

  1

  —

  Bricklayer and Construction

  —

  2

  —

  Combat Engineer

  4

  10

  7

  Combat Lineman

  1

  1

  —

  Combat Medical Technician

  5

  2

  5

  Combat Signalman Royal Engineers

  —

  1

  1

  Combat Signalman

  —

  2

  —

  Chef

  4

  5

  6

  Clerk

  3

  3

  4

  Clerk Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  1

  —

  —

  Command Post Assistant (Field)

  —

  3

  —

  Command Post Assistant (Surface to Air Missiles)

  1

  —

  —

  Design Draftsman

  1

  —

  —

  Drone Operator

  —

  —

  3

  Driver

  19

  14

  30

  Driver Electrician

  2

  1

  2

  Driver Lineman

  —

  2

  2

  Driver Radio Operator

  —

  1

  2

  Driver Royal Engineers

  2

  —

  2

  Driver Royal Army Ordnance Corps

  1

  —

  —

  Driver Tank Transporter

  —

  —

  1

  Electrician Royal Engineers

  1

  —

  —

  Fitter Royal Engineers

  —

  —

  4

  Gunner Driver Royal Engineers

  10

  9

  16

  Gunner Field Guns

  21

  23

  32

  Gunner Surface to Air Missile Lights

  —

  4

  1

  Gunner Surface to Air Missile (Shoulder Launch)

  3

  1

  2

  Gunner Surface to Surface Missile

  1

  —

  —

  Infantry Soldier

  233

  243

  384

  Military Accountant

  3

  1

  3

  Mounted Gunner

  1

  —

  —

  Military Police (General Police Duties)

  —

  —

  2

  Metalsmith

  1

  —

  1

  Operator Artillery Intelligence

  —

  1

  —

  Petroleum Operative

  2

  —

  —

  Pioneer Royal Pioneer Corps

  13

  10

  6

  Plant Operator Mechanic

  —

  1

  2

  Plumber Pipe

  —

  2

  —

  Painter and Decorator

  2

  —

  —

  Postal Courier Operator

  —

  —

  2

  Physical Training Instructor

  —

  1

  —

  Radio Operator

  2

  2

  2

  Royal Armoured Corps Soldier

  6

  5

  4

  Radio Operator Field

  —

  1

  —

  Radio Relay Operator

  1

  3

  3

  Radio Relay Technician

  —

  1

  —

  Signaller Royal Artillery

  5

  3

  9

  Staff Clerk

  1

  —

  —

  Storeman Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  —

  3

  —

  Storeman Technical

  —

  2

  —

  Stores Accountant

  1

  1

  —

  Supply Controller

  1

  3

  3

  Supply Specialist

  9

  3

  5

  Technician Aircraft

  1

  —

  —

  Technician Instrument

  —

  —

  1

  Technician Radar (Rapier)

  —

  —

  2

  Telecommunications Operator (Data)

  1

  2

  1

  Telecommunications Operator (Linguist)

  —

  1

  —

  Telecommunications Operator (Radio)

  —

  —

  1

  Telecommunications Operator (Telegraph)

  2

  4

  3

  UNALLOCATED

  132

  184

  175

  Vehicle Electrician

  —

  1

  1

  187

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Vehicle Specialist

  1

  —

  —

  Vehicle Mechanic A Vehicles

  —

  1

  1

  Vehicle Mechanic B Vehicles

  6

  5

  5

  Note: Absentees listed as unallocated are those without a specialist trade and thus not allocated to a career employment qualification group or for whom the career employment qualification is not recorded centrally.

  RAF

  Approximate length of absence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Under 1 month

  232

  161

  205

  1 to 3 months

  8

  11

  7

  3 to 6 months

  4

  1

  1

  6 to 12 months

  1

  —

  1

  1 year plus

  14

  2

  2

  Total

  259

  175

  216

  Note: Figures include those who returned from previous years but exclude those still absent.

  Absentees

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Under 18

  6

  1

  5

  Under 21

  88

  46

  84

  Record of absentees by Command

  Last recorded Command

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Germany

  10

  8

  9

  HQ Strike Command

  151

  110

  141

  HQ RAF Support Command

  50

  37

  42

  Others

  16

  9

  11

  Non effective1

  38

  12

  4

  Total

  265

  176

  207

  1 Non effective personnel are those absent for more than 28 days.

  Note: Figures include those who went absent and are still absent.

  A breakdown of RAF absentees by trade group is as follows

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Trade Group

  1. Aircraft engineering

  50

  20

  3

  2. Air Electronic Engineering

  8

  5

  4

  3. Ground Electronic Engineering

  9

  11

  7

  4. Obsolete

  —

  —

  —

  5. General Engineering

  8

  10

  6

  6. Mechanical transport

  24

  13

  17

  7. Marine craft (now obsolete)

  7

  —

  —

  8. Security

  30

  30

  31

  9. Air Traffic Control

  8

  6

  5

  10. General Service

  18

  8

  9

  11. Telecommunications

  13

  11

  13

  12. Aerospace Systems Operating

  5

  7

  6

  13. Safety and Surface

  8

  12

  8

  14. Photography

  9

  —

  2

  15. Medical

  2

  1

  —

  16. Dental

  1

  0

  0

  17. Accounting and Secretarial

  10

  9

  9

  18. Supply and Movements

  24

  24

  29

  19. Catering

  27

  8

  26

  54. Apprentices

  —

  —

  3

  Others

  11

  —

  —

  Departmental Appointees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of fees and reimbursements to people appointed to(a) public, (b) non-governmental and (c) other bodies by his Department.
  188
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 5 December 1990]: The non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Ministry of Defence are listed in the booklet "Public Bodies". This gives information on overall expenditure and the level of fees paid.

  In addition, the Ministry of Defence appoints annually a number of individuals on secondment to public, non-governmental and other bodies. The number of individuals seconded at the end of 1989 was as follows:

  Public bodies—21

  Non-governmental bodies—172

  Others (Industry and Commerce)—173

  The financial arrangements are agreed on an individual basis and further details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 4 December.

  Mr. Hurd
  A meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council took place in Brussels on 4 December. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I represented the United Kingdom.

  There was a useful discussion of preparations for the intergovernmental conference on political union. The Council confirmed that the IGC would set its own agenda, and agreed that the European Council should consider the full range of options which had emerged during the preparatory discussions. The Council had an informal discussion on the financial situation of eastern European countries and the food situation in the Soviet Union. The Commission will put detailed proposals to the European Council. The Council adopted the package of transitional measures integrating the former GDR into the EC.

  Ministers discussed the situation in the Gulf and reaffirmed their support for the relevant Security Council resolutions and their condemnation of the Iraqi treatment of hostages. They sent a message of support to President Menem of Argentina after the recent attempted rebellion by certain elements of the army. In a discussion of immigration issues, my hon. Friend underlined the importance for the United Kingdom, as an island, of maintaining essential checks at our ports and airports. Member states noted the need for a co-ordinated approach to this large, and growing, problem. There was a short, but inconclusive discussion on the budget for the expanded MEDIA programme.

  The Commission gave a progress report on its efforts to identify new EC aid projects for the occupied territories. On behalf of the Council, the presidency had a meeting with the President of the European Parliament to discuss amendments proposed by the European Parliament to the EC regulation providing financial assistance to Jordan, Egypt and Turkey.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Gibraltar.
  189
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The treaty of Utrecht established British title to Gibraltar and it remains under British sovereignty. The same treaty also gave Spain the right of "first refusal" if Gibraltar ceased to be British. None of this is or has been in dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain.

  Britain's commitment to the people of Gibraltar, enshrined in the 1969 constitution, is well known. This Government will not enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. The 1969 constitution also sets out the division of powers between the elected Government of Gibraltar and the British Government. It bestows an appropriate level of self-government for domestic matters while preserving British sovereignty and reserving necessary powers to Britain. As regards Gibraltar airport, the British Government have frequently emphasised that development could not proceed against the wishes of the Gibraltar Government and people.

  The British Government are fully committed to the negotiating process with Spain (the Brussels process) aimed at overcoming all the differences between the British and Spanish Governments over Gibraltar. It covers the question of sovereignty, as well as mutually beneficial co-operation. Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar would be possible only if acceptable to the Gibraltarians. Under the treaty of Utrecht independence is not an option, unless Spain is prepared to agree.

  The Government are actively seeking to improve relations between Gibraltar and Spain and, as a significant aspect of this, working for increasingly close local co-operation which will be beneficial for the whole region. This would be in full accordance with the spirit of the CSCE, and of developments in the European Community of which Gibraltar is part. Such co-operation can flourish only on the basis of mutual confidence. We hope that all parties will act in a way that builds trust and leads to progress.

  'Third-world Debt
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the amount of provisions against third-world debts set aside by commercial banks on which tax relief was allowed in the latest year for which figures were available; and what was the total tax relief allowed.

  Mr. Maude
  I have been asked to reply.

  The reduction in mainstream corporation tax receipts for 1989–90 is estimated at £⅓ billion. The corresponding provisions allowable for tax relief amount to about £1 billion.

SCOTLAND

  Educational Psychologists
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures he has on(a) the total numbers of children referred by their schools to see educational psychologists and (b) those currently waiting to do so.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.
  190
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the actual and the recommended numbers of educational psychologists in each local education authority.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The full-time equivalent number of educational psychologists employed in regional and islands psychological services in Scotland as at September 1989 was:

  Number

  Borders

  4·0

  Central

  20·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10·0

  Fife

  22·0

  Grampian

  26·0

  Highland

  13·0

  Lothian

  33·4

  Strathclyde

  160·5

  Tayside

  23·5

  Orkney

  2·0

  Shetland

  2·0

  Western Isles

  2·0

  Scotland

  318·4

  Strathclyde Divisions

  Argyll and Bute

  4·0

  Ayr

  23·0

  Dumbarton

  20·0

  Glasgow

  50·0

  Lanark

  41·0

  Renfrew

  22·5

  Source: School Census return SC6.

  It is for education authorities themselves to determine the number of educational psychologists they require to assist them in carrying out their functions.

  MFV Antares
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold a fatal accident inquiry into the recent sinking of the MFV Antares with the loss of her four-man crew.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock is investigating the circumstances of the loss of this vessel and will report to Crown counsel. A fatal accident inquiry is mandatory in any case involving a death resulting from an accident in the course of employment.

  Deaf-blind Children
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaf-blind children are currently enrolled in primary and secondary schools; what provisions have been made for them; and what plans for improvement are to be implemented in the near future.

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

  Disabled Pupils
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children confined to wheelchairs are currently enrolled in primary and secondary schools; and what information he has on the number unable to be offered places due to lack of funds or facilities.

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

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase transport expenditure in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has made provision in 1991–92 totalling £375 million for expenditure on roads and transport by central Government and for capital expenditure by local authorities. Although expenditure provision in 1991–92 will be lower than in 1990–91 it has risen substantially in recent years.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Industry
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the state of the agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 29 November at column 1008.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1988–89 dairy farming was the most profitable sector of agriculture in the United Kingdom. More recently dairy incomes have been under pressure as a result of rising costs at a time of lower prices for calves and static milk prices. The problems of structural surplus are again apparent and it is clear that the Community milk regime needs to give greater weight to market forces. Furthermore, I remain of the view that both United Kingdom dairy farmers and the dairy industry generally would benefit from a move away from the present statutory milk marketing arrangements towards a more competitive system.

  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report the names of the chairman and executive members of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, their terms of office, remuneration and from whence they were recruited for these posts.

  Mr. Curry
  The chairman and other members of the authority were appointed on 1 October 1990 and the deputy chairman on 1 December. Appointments are normally for a three-year period, but Ministers may, under certain circumstances, terminate an appointment at any time during that three-year period.

  The board comprises 12 members appointed by Ministers. The chairman and deputy chairman and two other members are independent members who have no direct financial or commercial interest in the fishing industry. The other members are drawn from various sectors of the fishing and fish processing industry and the industry is consulted on their appointments. These
  192
  members represent the industry as a whole rather than their own particular sector. The chairman receives £25,490 and the deputy chairman £11,909 and the other board members £5,330 per annum for their services.

  Names of the authority's board members and their position are given in the table. Further biographical details were given in the MAFF news releases 296/90 of 30 August, 321/90 of 25 September and 385/90 of 4 December, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Independent Members

  Mr. John MacKay (Chairman)

  Mr. Eric Davey, JP (Deputy Chairman)

  Professor Mike Haines

  Mr. Frank Ledwidge, OBE, FCA

  Industry Representatives

  Mr. John Adams

  Mr. John V. Cradock

  Mr. William Hay, CBE

  Mr. Duncan Macinnes, JP

  Mr. Ian McFadden

  Miss Elizabeth Stevenson

  Mr. David Vickers

  Mr. Colin Warwick

  Beef
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the local authorities which currently have a ban on eating beef in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available. All local authorities have been advised of the chief medical officer's view that British beef can be eaten safely by everyone. The Agriculture Committee's report on BSE endorsed this view.

  Fishing Boats
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take action to control the use of tributyltin used by fishing boats; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The use, sale, supply, advertisement or storage of tributyltin (TBT) paint for use on vessels under 25 m or on fish and shellfish farming equipment was made an offence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 as from 1 July 1987. This ban covers more than 98 per cent. of the United Kingdom fishing fleet. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in international discussions of the need for further controls to limit TBT contamination from, for example, dry dock operations and larger vessels.

  Waste Disposal
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to publish his annual report on the disposal of waste at sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  A report on the licensing of waste disposal at sea in 1988 and 1989, together with results of the Ministry's monitoring of the marine environment in those years is being finalised for publication. It is expected to be published in March 1991.

  Poultry Flocks (Salmonella)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on compensation for salmonella-infected poultry flocks.
  193
  Mr. Gummer
  I have considered carefully the outcome of a recent arbitration case in which the National Farmers Union, on behalf of 11 flock owners, disputed the amount of compensation paid for poultry flocks which had been compulsorily slaughtered. The arbitrator decided that the payments to the flock owners concerned should be increased. This will be done, in accordance with the terms laid down by the arbitrator.

  I have also decided to alter the compensation arrangements for all other producers who have received, or will receive, compensation after the date of the arbitrator's award on 25 September. With effect from that date compensation will be calculated on the basis of the full value of the number of birds in the flock, other than the estimated number of diseased birds for which there is no requirement for the payment of compensation under the Animal Health Act 1981. The number of diseased birds will be calculated on the basis of the level of infection in the flock estimated from the examination of samples. The precise method of calculating compensation on this basis will be discussed with industry organisations. The new arrangements are expected in most cases to result in a significant increase in the amount of compensation paid to flock owners.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is given to his Department's officers to decide an appropriate level of remuneration for part-time work undertaken by those claiming income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The chief adjudication officer is responsible for providing guidance to the Department's adjudication officers, who decide all questions relating to entitlement to income support. Normally, a claimant's gross part-time earnings, less any appropriate deductions, are used when calculating how much benefit can be paid. In a small number of cases, however, earnings are assumed where a person receives no earnings for the work done, or less earnings than is paid for comparable work in the locality. But this rule does not apply to charitable or voluntary work, or where there is evidence that the employer cannot afford to pay higher wages. Adjudication officers are advised, therefore, to consider the nature of the employment, and to compare the rate of pay with that for similar work in the area and any evidence provided by the job centre. The detailed guidance is contained in the adjudication officer's guide, paragraphs 29,251 to 29,400, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the recently announced increase in child benefit for the only, elder or eldest child in the family is to be made an overlapping benefit in respect of the contributory benefit child dependency increase.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 16 November. I can confirm that the adjustment to which my 194
  hon. Friend referred will be provided for by means of an amendment to the Social Security (Overlapping Benefits) Regulations 1979.

  Elderly People (Carers)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the number of(a) women, (b) men and (c) families engaged in full-time unpaid work caring for physically or mentally handicapped elderly persons in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. In September 1990 there were approximately 130,000 people receiving invalid care allowance, of whore 82 per cent. were women. A recipient of this benefit must provide at least 35 hours care per week to a severely disabled person who receives attendance allowance or constant attendance allowance.

  The 1985 general household survey identified 1·4 million people who devoted at least 20 hours each week to caring.

  Pensions
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of allowing men and women to retire at 60 years on 80 per cent. of the national average wage.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The cost of providing state retirement pensions to men and women at age 60 has been estimated at £3 billion a year at 1985–86 prices.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of paying pensioners £100 per week over the present rates.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of increasing the state retirement pension by this amount would be approximately £45·5 billion per year.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail price index in the last financial year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Overall, the administrative costs of the Department increased by more than the retail prices index in 1989–90. This figure includes a large capital investment programme in respect of the computerisation of the benefits system, which will produce substantial savings in later years. If this element is excluded, the administrative costs rose by slightly less than the retail prices index.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the ratio between the pensions of single people and couples; and when it was last reviewed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no basic retirement pension rate for married couples as such. The full category A pension for a single person stands currently at £46·90. A married man on this rate of pension can claim an adult
  195
  dependency increase (ADI) of £28·20 for a wife under 60 years of age; a wife over pensionable age could receive a category BL pension in her own right at the same rate, based on her husband's contributions. Since 1973, both the ADI and the category BL pension have been uprated in line with the single category A pension. This has meant that the ratio of the ADI or category BL to the single category A retirement pension has remained at about 60 per cent. since 1973.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reasons for his decision to reduce the level of specific grant assistance to direct housing benefit and community charge benefit from 1991–92 for the district councils in the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The reduction in the rate of direct benefit subsidy from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent. which will apply to all authorities in Great Britain, is a modest adjustment in the balance between direct and indirect subsidy, designed to promote economy and efficiency in the handling of public funds.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of attendance allowance were for periods of(a) two years, (b) one year, (c) nine months, (d) six months, and (e) any other period of less than three years, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Such information as is available is in the table. I understand that it is not the normal practice for the attendance allowance board to issue certificates to new beneficiaries for less than a year. The vast majority of short period certificates are issued on occasions when we need to ensure that there is no break of entitlement on renewal claims or during the processing of a review.

  Awards made during period 1 October 1989 to 30 September 1990

  Lower rate

  Higher rate

  Total

  Under 1 year

  228

  138

  366

  1 to 2 years

  11,942

  7,536

  19,478

  2 to 3 years

  9,641

  5,777

  15,418

  Total under 3 years

  21,811

  13,451

  35,262

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the cost of the reduction of the five-year age limit for the mobility component of disability living allowance to(a) three years and (b) two years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his estimate of the cost of abolition of the five-year age limit for the mobility component of disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of potential beneficiaries from a reduction in the lower age limit for the mobility component cannot be predicted with any great degree of certainty. Our best estimate, however, based on analyses of 196
  the OPCS disability surveys is that the abolition of the age limit would cost about £35 million a year; a reduction in the age limit to three years would cost about £25 million and a reduction to two years about £30 million.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of reduction of the three-month waiting period for disability living allowance to(a) two months and (b) one month; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The costs would be(a) about £35 million a year and (b) about £65 million a year.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of abolition of the three-month waiting period for disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The cost would be about £100 million a year.

  Benefit Values
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will give the cash level of benefits in November 1979 and April 1991, and the real-terms change in the value using the change in the retail price index or Rossi index, as appropriate, between November 1979 and September 1990, using November 1979 as 100 for (i) retirement pension, (ii) unemployment benefit, (iii) sickness benefit, (iv) industrial disablement benefit, (v) industrial death benefit, (vi) maternity allowance, (vii) war disablement pension, (viii) war widows pension, (ix) attendance allowance, (x) invalid care allowance, (xi) severe disablement allowance, (xii) child benefit for first and second and subsequent children separately and (xiii) one parent benefit giving, where appropriate, the single and couple and higher and lower rate separately;

  (2) if he will give the cash level of benefits in November 1979 and April 1991, and the real-terms change in the value using the change in the index for average gross weekly earnings, all full-time workers on adult rates in all industries and services, excluding those whose pay was affected by absence between November 1979 and September 1990, using November 1979 as 100 for (i) retirement pension, (ii) unemployment benefit, (iii) sickness benefit, (iv) industrial disablement benefit, (v) industrial death benefit, (vi) maternity allowance, (vii) war disablement pension, (viii) war widows pension, (ix) attendance allowance, (x) invalid care allowance, (xi) severe disablement allowance, (xii) child benefit for first and second and subsequent children separately and (xiii) one parent benefit giving, where appropriate, the single and couple and higher and lower rate separately.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not yet possible to calculate the "real-terms" change in the value of benefits that are due for payment in April 1991, and it would not be meaningful to make calculations to average benefit rates over a particular period on the basis of movements in prices over a different period. Nor is it meaningful to calculate a "real-terms change" by reference to an index of earnings.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the annual cost incurred through purchasing special speech therapy services etc. for Northern Ireland children provided outside the United Kingdom in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many children required special speech therapy which has to he obtained outside Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is not held centrally, but I understand that such referrals as do occur are extremely rare.

  Glenshane County Londonderry

  Belraugh County Londonderry

  Glenwherry County Antrim

  Acreage

  10,744

  2,247

  8,620

  Estimated number of breeding sheep

  11,300

  3,000

  7,000

  Monitoring of radioactivity levels in survey flocks has demonstrated no significant fall in radioactivity levels.

  The available research data from sampling of vegetation and soil/peat does not allow firm conclusions to be reached.

  It is not possible to predict how long restrictions will need to stay in force. They will be lifted as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising the safety of the food chain.

  Chernobyl Accident
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what investigations have been carried out to determine the effect of the Chernobyl accident on those rivers in Northern Ireland which drain the areas affected by the accident; if any rise in radioactivity has been observed in the waters of those rivers and streams during(a) drought conditions and (b) flood conditions; whether any rise in radioactivity has been observed in the flesh of (i) trout, (ii) coarse fish, (iii) salmon or sea trout and (iv) smelts of salmon or sea trout; and if there has been any attempt to discover whether the spawn of such fish has been affected.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 December 1990]: Radioactivity levels in Northern Ireland waters and in fish following the Chernobyl incident were low and have since declined to very low levels. These levels would have no impact on fish populations. The specific investigations referred to have not therefore been considered necessary.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what investigations have been carried out into the effect on(a) hares and rabbits, (b) red grouse, snipe pheasant and woodcock, (c)rooks and jackdaws, (d)grey crows, ravens, magpies and buzzards and (e) falcons and hawks, of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will indicate the amount of radioactivity present in the flesh of the various species as a result of that accident in those areas of Northern Ireland affected by that accident.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 December 1990]: Monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in wild species

  Chernobyl Accident
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the areas, and the size of each of those areas in acres, together with the number of sheep affected, which are still under restrictions arising from the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and indicate the percentage fall of radioactivity in(a) the peat, (b) the vegetation and (c) the sheep, since the accident occurred; and when he now expects to be able to remove restrictions on the movement of sheep in those areas.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 December 1990]: Restrictions on movement and slaughter of sheep in Northern Ireland apply in the following areas:

  subsequent to the Chernobyl incident was discontinued when levels were found to be well below the control limit of 1,000 bq/kg.

  Social Fund
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each year since the present system came into operation and the current year to date how many times the social fund commissioner has referred appeals back to the local office and in how many of such cases of referral in each year the local office refused to pay.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 December 1990]: The readily available information is as follows:

  Social Fund Review Applications

  1988–89

  1989–90

  21990

  Cases referred back by Social Fund Inspectors to Social Fund Officers for redetermination

  81

  595

  395

  Cases in which no payment was made as a result of redetermination

  1—

  208

  208

  1Not available

  2April-October

  Loans and Grants
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each Department of Health and Social Services office in Northern Ireland what sums were available for (a) crisis loans, (b) budgeting loans and (c) community care grants in each year since the system was introduced and the current year to the latest available date; how much was expended in each area in each year; and what was the percentage under or overspent in each area and year.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 4 December 1990]: The information is not available in the precise format requested as in the allocation of resources for loans from

  199
  the social fund no distinction is made between crisis and budgeting loans. Otherwise the details for each office are shown in the following tables:

  Year ended 31 March 1989

  Social Security Office

  Loans

  Community care grants

  Budget

  Expenditure

  Percentage (over)/under spend

  Budget

  Expenditure

  Percentage (over)/under spend

  Andersonstown

  905,619

  835,186

  7·78

  471,353

  441,620

  6·31

  Antrim

  435,034

  393,813

  9·48

  227,975

  127,348

  44·14

  Armagh

  322,985

  256,080

  20·72

  170,219

  91,105

  46·48

  Ballymena

  379,364

  328,289

  13·47

  199,742

  70,666

  64·63

  Ballymoney

  271,671

  195,554

  28·02

  142,756

  44,901

  68·55

  Ballynahinch

  41,788

  30,725

  26·48

  22,590

  22,537

  0·24

  Banbridge

  159,069

  128,283

  19·36

  84,721

  56,825

  32·93

  Bangor

  177,038

  165,034

  6·78

  94,874

  80,094

  15·58

  Carrickfergus

  165,336

  158,956

  3·86

  87,156

  46,653

  46·48

  Coleraine

  428,571

  334,107

  22·05

  224,795

  103,022

  54·17

  Cookstown

  260,206

  231,603

  11·00

  136,787

  133,318

  2·54

  Corporation Street

  1,078,670

  1,002,369

  7·08

  565,760

  359,933

  36·38

  Downpatrick

  164,193

  155,620

  5·25

  86,599

  44,425

  48·70

  Dungannon

  405,542

  346,935

  14·48

  213,702

  130,350

  39·01

  Enniskillen

  301,787

  264,600

  12·33

  161,813

  132,945

  17·84

  Falls

  753,462

  717,088

  4·83

  392,588

  144,096

  63·30

  Holywood Road

  489,148

  448,035

  8·41

  258,404

  209,835

  18·80

  Kilkeel

  58,162

  37,235

  35·98

  31,118

  23,337

  25·01

  Knockbreda

  253,421

  243,974

  3·73

  137,060

  131,105

  4·35

  Larne

  163,604

  163,595

  0·1

  85,372

  43,962

  48·51

  Limavady

  142,863

  138,857

  2·81

  73,986

  65,599

  11·34

  Lisburn

  730,380

  514,827

  29·52

  385,532

  124,677

  67·66

  Londonderry

  1,164,923

  1,103,178

  5·30

  606,217

  606,217

  Nil

  Lurgan

  848,299

  469,567

  44·65

  445,083

  347,560

  21·92

  Magherafelt

  435,749

  227,776

  47·73

  229,896

  218,354

  5·02

  Newcastle

  76,819

  63,520

  17·32

  40,816

  19,783

  51·53

  Newry

  697,358

  441,005

  36·76

  366,163

  179,437

  51·00

  Newtownabbey

  273,545

  267,913

  2·06

  143,538

  47,940

  66·60

  Newtownards

  142,875

  138,180

  3·29

  76,297

  59,471

  22·06

  Omagh

  395,880

  347,434

  12·24

  208,563

  91,740

  56·02

  Portadown

  209,130

  206,933

  1·05

  111,211

  111,201

  0·09

  Shaftesbury Square

  584,247

  455,628

  22·02

  305,219

  151,991

  50·21

  Shankill

  381,282

  368,042

  3·48

  201,247

  164,104

  18·46

  Strabane

  402,120

  376,556

  6·36

  210,940

  109,666

  48·01

  Year ended 31 March 1990

  Loans

  Community care grants

  Social security office

  Budget

  Expenditure

  Percentage (over)/under spend

  Budget

  Expenditure

  Percentage (over)/under spend

  Andersonstown

  932,410

  932,409

  —

  442,394

  442,384

  —

  Antrim

  461,317

  455,925

  1·16

  225,670

  225,664

  —

  Armagh

  318,737

  318,735

  —

  169,258

  168,686

  0·33

  Ballymena

  385,109

  352,864

  8·38

  197,790

  186,791

  5·56

  Ballymoney

  268,617

  248,006

  7·68

  138,228

  137,904

  0·23

  Ballynahinch

  44,710

  44,650

  0·14

  25,629

  25,608

  0·08

  Banbridge

  160,814

  158,489

  1·45

  86,686

  86,653

  0·03

  Bangor

  187,166

  183,394

  2·02

  94,295

  90,095

  4·45

  Carrickfergus

  171,258

  169,961

  0·76

  94,626

  93,085

  1·62

  Coleraine

  427,065

  415,569

  ·69

  225,561

  225,560

  —

  Cookstown

  257,932

  226,143

  ·33

  147,724

  147,683

  0·02

  Corporation Street

  1,065,039

  1,039,844

  2·37

  566,210

  566,210

  —

  Downpatrick

  168,476

  162,151

  3·76

  87,131

  87,126

  —

  Dungannon

  406,060

  387,119

  4·67

  218,442

  218,534

  (0·04)

  Enniskillen

  311,496

  304,279

  2·32

  185,626

  185,622

  —

  Falls

  801,039

  801,023

  0·01

  391,347

  391,341

  —

  Holywood Road

  522,199

  517,724

  0·85

  274,270

  270,605

  1·33

  Kilkeel

  59,062

  56,975

  3·53

  32,365

  32,362

  —

  Knockbreda

  283,005

  282,139

  0·30

  156,027

  156,068

  (0·02)

  Larne

  170,264

  170,307

  (0·02)

  86,575

  85,355

  1·40

  Limavady

  152,072

  150,787

  0·84

  83,371

  83,370

  —

  Lisburn

  698,751

  504,315

  27·82

  298,379

  286,797

  3·88

  Londonderry

  1,186,623

  1,174,356

  1·03

  619,379

  619,379

  —

  Lurgan

  794,217

  552,882

  30·38

  416,837

  416,775

  0·01

  Magherafelt

  413,409

  337,665

  18·32

  241,428

  241,427

  —

  Newcastle

  78,413

  69,357

  11·54

  41,673

  41,570

  0·24

  Newry

  679,813

  679,785

  0·01

  383,001

  382,994

  —

  Newtownabbey

  296,905

  296,884

  0·01

  143,676

  143,602

  0·05

  200 201

  Loans

  Community care grants

  Social security office

  Budget

  Expenditure

  Percentage (over)/under spend

  Budget

  Expenditure

  Percentage (over)/under spend

  Newtownards

  153,776

  150,343

  2·23

  82,283

  81,884

  0·48

  Omagh

  394,289

  366,896

  6·94

  196,030

  185,720

  5·25

  Portadown

  219,015

  218,933

  0·03

  123,249

  123,220

  0·02

  Shaftesbury Square

  584,744

  557,399

  4·67

  297,163

  293,675

  1·17

  Shankill

  397,224

  397,549

  (0·08)

  209,008

  209,008

  —

  Strabane

  405,014

  386,768

  4·50

  218,761

  218,488

  0·12

  Current year to 31 October 1990

  Loans

  Community care grants

  Social Security Office

  Budget

  Expenditure

  Per cent, spent year to date

  Budget

  Expenditure

  Per cent, spent year to date

  Andersonstown

  915,636

  546,402

  59·67

  424,212

  220,989

  52·09

  Antrim

  448,499

  252,974

  56·40

  229,953

  118,573

  51·56

  Armagh

  317,106

  178,753

  56·37

  166,613

  83,719

  50·25

  Ballymena

  383,728

  171,570

  44·71

  192,327

  101,451

  52·75

  Ballymoney

  265,554

  157,798

  59·42

  136,757

  61,184

  44·74

  Ballynahinch

  48,703

  26,075

  53·54

  29,384

  16,897

  57·50

  Banbridge

  162,037

  98,793

  60·97

  92,455

  52,810

  57·12

  Bangor

  196,414

  101,006

  51·43

  108,115

  44,341

  41·01

  Carrickfergus

  175,273

  95,395

  54·43

  92,650

  45,183

  48·77

  Coleraine

  429,403

  208,141

  48·47

  226,051

  113,536

  50·23

  Cookstown

  254,167

  134,632

  52·97

  143,750

  71,949

  50·05

  Corporation Street

  1,059,369

  607,133

  57·31

  601,174

  350,683

  58·33

  Downpatrick

  172,124

  97,529

  56·66

  88,394

  48,495

  54·86

  Dungannon

  400,736

  223,775

  55·84

  214,197

  134,082

  62·60

  Enniskillen

  327,961

  211,835

  64·59

  194,388

  137,324

  70·64

  Falls

  799,911

  486,250

  60·79

  387,353

  223,462

  57·69

  Holywood Road

  529,377

  306,695

  57·94

  291,329

  168,377

  57·80

  Kilkeel

  61,022

  33,713

  55·25

  34,267

  14,034

  40·95

  Knockbreda

  286,501

  156,001

  54·45

  168,729

  105,763

  62·68

  Larne

  178,239

  103,031

  57·80

  92,327

  51,461

  55·74

  Limavady

  162,347

  81,359

  50·11

  84,517

  45,695

  54·07

  Lisburn

  652,879

  261,125

  40·00

  339,746

  170,752

  50·26

  Londonderry

  1,204,827

  707,300

  58·71

  650,955

  368,909

  56·67

  Lurgan

  730,837

  309,606

  42·36

  400,229

  226,086

  56·49

  Magherafelt

  394,742

  196,717

  49·83

  237,957

  108,271

  45·50

  Newcastle

  80,162

  30,004

  37·43

  45,232

  22,733

  50·26

  Newry

  678,334

  357,937

  52·77

  362,648

  257,951

  71·13

  Newtownabbey

  304,808

  161,170

  52·88

  145,336

  82,457

  56·74

  Newtownards

  163,269

  91,184

  55·85

  89,635

  56,915

  63·50

  Omagh

  394,944

  233,628

  59·15

  199,907

  110,044

  55·05

  Portadown

  221,537

  123,855

  55·91

  121,907

  64,759

  53·12

  Shaftesbury Square

  586,871

  313,012

  53·34

  294,472

  167,657

  56·93

  Shankill

  403,126

  198,728

  49·30

  214,459

  107,092

  49·94

  Strabane

  409,558

  202,904

  49·54

  218,574

  126,559

  57·90

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek a meeting with the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the shadow ITC to discuss the case for assurances from British Satellite Broadcasting, British Sky Broadcasting and News International about the expeditious honouring of contractual commitments of British Satellite Broadcasting to its customers, manufacturers and retailers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. It would not be right for Ministers to become involved in contractual issues of this kind which must be for the parties concerned to pursue direct with the new company.

  Police Firearms
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for I he Home Department in how many operations firearms were issued to police officers in England and Wales for the years 1983 to the present; in how many of those operations shots were fired by police officers; how many police officers are currently qualified to carry firearms; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the previous seven years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information relating to the police use of firearms in operations against criminals or others known or believed to be armed is given in the following table.

  Year

  Number of authorised firearms officers

  Number of operations

  Number of occasions when shots fired

  1983

  13,044

  3,180

  3

  1984

  11,873

  2,667

  6

  1985

  10,244

  2,488

  7

  1986

  8,395

  2,453

  1

  203

  Year

  Number of authorised firearms officers

  Number of operations

  Number of occasions when shots fired

  1987

  7,349

  2,185

  7

  1988

  7,194

  2,227

  2

  1989

  7,311

  2,583

  4

  Despite a small increase in 1989, the trend over the period shows a significant reduction in the number of authorised firearms officers. The decrease reflects the emphasis placed by chief officers on having highly trained firearms officers in numbers no greater than is operationally necessary.

  Purchasing
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the purchasing policy of his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Department follows the Government's policy that purchasers should base all procurement of goods and services on value for money, including quality, or fitness for purpose and delivery against price. In accordance with that policy, goods and services are acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. Under EC rules, and the GATT Government agreement (GPA) where appropriate, my Department is obliged to award relevant contracts in accordance with the prescribed procedures aimed at avoiding discrimination on the grounds of nationality.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the 10 worst purchases made by his Department in the month of October as measured against the Government's supply index;

  (2) what were his Department's (a)best and (b)worst purchases made in the current month as compared with the Government's supply index.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Information on my Department's best and worst purchases made in the current month as compared with the Governments supply index is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the administrative costs of his Department rose by more or less than the retail price index in the last financial year.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Gross running costs expenditure on Home Office administration was 10·3 per cent. higher in 1989–90 than in the previous year. During the same period the retail prices index increased by 7·8 per cent.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names and salaries of each political adviser working in his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Mr. Tony Kerpel. It is not the practice to disclose the salaries of special advisers as they are negotiated individually in relation to previous outside earnings and are therefore confidential.

  Derbyshire Constabulary
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish the report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary on Derbyshire constabulary.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The report has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Distress Warrants
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 22 November 1990 Official Report, column 175, on distress warrants, if he will classify by type the numbers of distress warrants issued in each of the last three years; and how many of these led to property seizure and sale.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 3 December 1990]: Information on the number of distress warrants is obtained from the magistrates courts' management information system, and the only breakdown available is as follows:

  Distress warrants issued in respect of arrears on:

  Fine and Fee accounts

  Maintenance accounts

  1987

  185,000

  200

  1988

  560,000

  600

  1989

  587,000

  2,800

  Information is not available on the action occurring after the issue of a warrant.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Angola
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government plan to make available further humanitarian assistance to Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I very much welcome the agreement of all parties in Angola to the United Nations special relief programme. I have this week approved a further £500,000 of relief assistance for the victims of drought and civil war in Angola. This is in addition to our earlier agreement to help meet the cost of a team of United Nations relief co-ordinators and brings the total of our relief assistance to Angola to £1·5 million since September last year.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE

  Inflation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to start publishing the rate of inflation excluding mortgage interest rates and the poll tax in the retail prices index press release.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. Data for the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments and the community charge are available upon request from the Central Statistical Office press office.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of inflation; and what are the predictions for the next 12 months.
  205
  Mr. Maples
  The all-items retail prices index inflation rate was 10·9 per cent. in October. The autumn statement forecast is for a sharp fall to 5½ per cent. by the fourth quarter of next year.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rate of inflation from 1979 to the latest convenient date; and what was the comparable figure for the preceding five years.

  Mr. Maples
  Between October 1979 and October 1990, the latest available date, the retail prices index increased by an average of 7·3 per cent. per annum. The corresponding average annual increase between October 1974 and October 1979 was 15·8 per cent.

  Inflation (European Community Countries)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many countries in the European Community have a higher rate of inflation than the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maples
  Two.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total gross costs to the Exchequer associated with the privatisation programme have been to date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  £1 billion has been paid in fees and other costs to privatisation advisers and contractors.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry on the current level of interest rates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend has seen the CBI's latest economic situation report.

  Mr. Duffy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Bank base rates are 14 per cent.

  Departmental (Expenditure)
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Departments are planned to have less money in real terms in 1993–94 than they spent in 1990–91 on estimated outturns.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 1A.10 of the 1990 autumn statement.

  Taxes and National Insurance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage of gross income paid in total taxation including national insurance by a married couple with one earner and two children on average wages and treating child benefit as negative income tax in 1978–79 and 1989–90.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Approximately 35 per cent. and 36 per cent. respectively. Over the same period, measured 206
  at 1990 prices, the same family has enjoyed an increase in real net income of over £58 per week, compared with a rise of less than £1·40 under the last Labour Government.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of non-oil gross domestic product non-oil taxes and national insurance contributions represented in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1989–90.

  Mr. Maples
  In 1978–79 it was 34¾ per cent. and 34¼ per cent. in 1989–90.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the Trades Union Congress to discuss child benefit.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have not met representatives of the Trades Union Congress to discuss child benefit.

  Growth Forecast
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about his forecast for growth in 1991.

  Mr. Mellor
  None, but I have seen the Confederation of British Industry's latest economic situation report.

  Charities
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the future status of charities with regard to liability for value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My ministerial colleagues and I receive numerous representations about the future VAT position of charities. We make it clear in reply that we are committed to securing the right conditions for charitable activity to flourish, both now and in the single market after 1992.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the public spending total for 1992–93.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. Friend receives representations from the Confederation of British Industry from time to time on a variety of economic matters, but none has specifically addressed the public spending total for 1992–93.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to the report of the EC committee of central bank governors concerning a European central bank.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  As the hon. Member knows, the work of the central bank governors was to establish what the arrangements might be if Governments decide that there should be such a bank. The Governor of the Bank of England has placed clearly on record the fundamental
  207
  reservations of the United Kingdom authorities—that is, the Government and the bank—about a single currency and a single monetary authority.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the percentage of personal income taken by income tax in 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Maples
  The percentage of personal income taken by income tax has fallen from 20 per cent. in 1978–79 to 17 per cent. in 1990–91.

  Oil Prices
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the implications for monetary and budgetary policy of the increase in oil prices caused by the continuing crisis in the Gulf.
  208
  Mr. Mellor
  Tight monetary and fiscal policies are required to ensure that the effect of higher oil prices on inflation is not accommodated.

  Business Expansion Scheme (Housing)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost to the Exchequer of each unit of accommodation under the business expansion scheme for housing.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 5 December 1990]: The cost per unit of accommodation of BES tax relief on residential property in 1988–89 is provisionally estimated as about £20,000. Information for 1989–90 is not yet available.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Import and Export Control Act.

Airports: European Slot Allocations
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards resolving the problem of slot allocations at busy European airports and whether the initial report from the European Commission, expected at the end of November, has been received.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that the Commission has now agreed a proposal, and that it intends to send it to the Council very soon.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that Answer is certainly better than I had expected. I imagine that the Minister is also agreeably surprised. Can he translate "very soon" for the House and can we be told the date of the next Council? Am I correct in thinking that at the beginning of October the Minister asked for a study into the IATA system of slot allocation? If that is correct, and he has received a copy of the study, can he tell the House what has come out of it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the next meeting of the Council will be on 17th and 18th December. This issue is not on the agenda as yet, and it may be a little soon to discuss it as we have not seen the proposals. The following meetings are scheduled for 27th March and 20th and 21st June next year. As regards the consultants' report that we commissioned, they have completed stage one of the work and we and the Civil Aviation Authority are now studying it. We shall soon be considering whether to proceed to stage two.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am surprised that the noble Baroness was so surprised that the Commission has done its duty? Is it not a fact that the Commission has given emphasis in its proposal to the issue of transparency? Is it not absolutely right that some of the cosy arrangements that have taken place in the past should be exposed and that people should know exactly what is happening about slot allocation? Is not the Minister at least in agreement in principle with the proposition
268
made on behalf of the Commission in its press statement that some rights must be surrendered by the major carriers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, transparency is one of the issues but by no means the only issue which must be looked at in the proposal. The subject is complicated and we must think not only of the EC but of the rest of the world. We must take that into account in the EC's proposals. We certainly support the EC's objective of making slots available to new entrants. New entrants are not an end in themselves and we are looking for a means of promoting strong and fair competition.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend join me in wishing many happy returns to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and wish him many years of happy activity on the Opposition Front Bench? Will my noble friend indicate how Her Majesty's Government view the slot allocation programme in the context of international traffic particularly over the Atlantic?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I had not realised that it is his birthday today. I have no hesitation in agreeing with all that my noble friend said. I touched on my noble friend's second point in my earlier reply. At present, approximately 30 per cent. of traffic is non-EC and that must be taken into account when the proposals are considered.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that there is a difficulty about the definition of new entrants? While many people would support the proposition that the major airlines should be prepared to give up slots to smaller airlines which might be described as new entrants, they would be less sanguine if the slots were to go to major international carriers which might be defined as new entrants because they had only a small number of slots. Can the Minister help with the definition of new entrants?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have not seen the proposals, which were agreed only yesterday. Perhaps I may refer back to the earlier proposals that were mentioned during our debate on the subject. As the noble Lord has pointed out, there is a problem because the proposals would have affected medium-size airlines such as British Midland which now provide the most effective competition for dominant carriers. It would not have qualified as a new entrant and might have been dispossessed of some slots. That is a problem and we shall wait to see what is in the new proposals.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I must put this in the form of a question. Is the Minister aware, as I am, that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has come from much higher pastures than we have? Is he also aware that if the noble Lord had been in the House during the past few years, he would not be at all astonished that I am surprised that the Commission came up with the answer?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, heard the second part of the noble Baroness's question. This afternoon I do not

269
wish to enter into the argument as to whether being a commissioner can be regarded as coming from higher pastures than your Lordships' House.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was referring to Hackney rather than the Commission! I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the Minister for their very kind birthday greetings. I look forward to receiving their presents in due course!
Will the Minister give consideration to promoting this issue at the next informal meeting of Transport Ministers so that it can be given an early airing? I believe that that would facilitate the possibility of progress being made at the June Council.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly. We wish to give this matter an early airing. I do not have a date for the informal Councils and, as I said, the next full meeting of the Council is too soon and the following meeting is on 27th March. If there is an informal Council meeting, I am sure that we shall study that aspect. We also wish to see the results of our own study into this matter in order to produce the best possible input into those discussions.

Psychiatric Patients: Aftercare
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the substantive statement of good practice on the discharge and after care of psychiatric patients, being developed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in concert with the other professions involved, is expected to be completed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Royal College of Psychiatrists is currently revising draft guidelines which I understand will be considered by its council in January 1991.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Do I understand that there is a possibility that the statement will be published shortly or is there difficulty in reaching a conclusion?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not aware of any difficulties encountered in reaching a conclusion. There has been a remark that, in seeking a consensus of other professions, there have been some difficulties. However, I remind my noble friend that in the course of this year the department has published a code of practice on the Mental Health Act 1983 and the care programme circular which, to some extent, overlapped the requirement for guidelines prepared by the royal college.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as the Minister knows, from these Benches we warmly welcome the guidelines. Whether or not the royal college has produced its declaration or has difficulties, will the noble Baroness accept that there is now a major crisis in the provision of community care for those discharged from psychiatric hospitals? Will she bring
270
that crisis, which requires emphasis, action and resources at a nationally high level, to the attention of the new Minister and the new Prime Minister?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that, under arrangements proposed by the Government, by April 1991 all district health authorities will be required to initiate, in collaboration with local social services departments, explicit individually tailored care programmes for all people being discharged into the community in that way. That care programme approach, reinforced by the new specific mental illness revenue grant and increased authorisation for capital expenditure on mental illness projects, is designed to secure real improvements in community services to the mentally ill.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does consultation take place between the Departments of the Environment and Health? It is quite impossible to cope with those patients in the community without the provision of some form of housing for them.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that there is such contact and co-ordination between the two government departments to which she referred.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while welcoming what the noble Baroness said about what will happen in April, can she tell us more about what is happening now? Does she not agree that it is inhumane to keep psychiatric patients in hospitals or institutions any longer than is strictly necessary and that it is even more inhumane to discharge them into the community before care is in place for them? Further, does she not agree that the whole concept of community care, which is very valuable and important, could be brought into disrepute if what is now happening continues to happen, even after April?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree that it is vitally important that the appropriate services should be available before patients are discharged to the community. The whole thrust of the Government's policies is in that direction.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, through voluntary organisations and hospitals, a great number of ex-patients are being housed within the community and local boroughs through housing associations? That is proving to be of great benefit because the patients then live in their own homes and have their own latchkeys. A great deal has already been achieved.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge the very important contribution being made by the voluntary sector. I also remind your Lordships that my honourable friend in another place announced in July a specific programme, likely to cost more than £5 million in the first two years, to help among other things to fund centrally the development of short-term hostel places and to provide people with the kind of short-term accommodation and services they need in order to progress to ordinary or supported housing.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the noble Baroness also accept that while paying proper tribute to voluntary organisations, local authorities are facing serious financial problems? The sum referred to is very small if it is to meet the desperate needs of local authorities and the voluntary organisations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are wandering rather far from the Question on the Order Paper. In so far as good practice is important in this area, I agree that vie should take the maximum care to ensure that housing and accommodation is available for patients when they are discharged.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, in addition to the care and concern provided for discharged psychiatric patients, and in order to help them feel more like members of the community, could they not be given a really smart set of clothes? Perhaps the women could also be given a smashing new hairdo.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel sure that those who need to take note of that suggestion will do so.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we welcome all the measures mentioned? However, the good practice should include some follow-up to help prevent the large number of ex-psychiatric patients we find ending up in cardboard boxes on the Embankment. Where was the good practice when those people left the psychiatric hospitals? Should they not have been followed up?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is important to look to the future and ensure that some of the mistakes that we recognise occurred in the past do not continue. I believe the care programme approach to which I referred is an important step forward.

The Capercaillie
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have decided not to introduce the ban on the shooting of capercaillie which was due to be implemented in October 1990.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment consulted interested parties on 23rd March regarding the desirability of introducing a shooting ban to conserve capercaillie. The responses confirmed that shooting is not a major pressure and that further research is needed. My honourable friend therefore announced on 2nd September that a shooting ban would not be imposed, and that the Nature Conservancy Council is to follow up the consultation. I shall gladly supply a copy of the announcement and place it in the Library.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he not agree that as the numbers of capercaillie are now down to slightly fewer than 2,000, as far as can be judged, and as they are not good to eat and not even good sport, even the loss of a few by shooting is a waste of time? Will the Minister therefore rethink the question of a shooting ban, at least for the next season?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not dispute that the capercaillie is neither good sport nor good to eat; I have neither sported with them nor eaten them. No doubt the noble Baroness speaks from experience. It is a well known fact that the cause of the decline of the capercaillie has been due to loss of habitat. It is also well known that sporting estates are interested in maintaining habitat. That is why we asked for a voluntary ban on shooting rather than a statutory one.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the last point he made regarding the preservation of habitats is one of the most important features in this matter? Sportsmen have already taken a number of steps by imposing voluntary bans on the shooting of capercaillie and in preserving many of the remains of the pine forests which are the natural habitat for these birds. Will the Minister agree to look at the question of whether predation is an important feature when it comes to the research activities to which he referred?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct in everything that he says. Certainly the research being carried out will look at all aspects of habitat and predation concerning the capercaillie.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the word "predation" is new to me. Does it mean the work of predatory birds? What does it mean?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the greatest predatory threats to the capercaillie are the ground vermin such as foxes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, following my Question earlier this year on this subject, are the Government entirely satisfied that the future is safe, at least for several years, for this remarkable bird? It became extinct in Scotland and was reintroduced only in the last century.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that was very much the basis of the consultation. Nobody wishes to see the extinction of this bird. My noble friend is quite correct in saying that it was extinct in the early part of the 19th century. We are sure that this is the right way to go ahead and shall look carefully at the results of the research when they come out.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, although I appreciate the Minister saying that there will be a voluntary ban on shooting the capercaillie and that most shooters will accept the ban, the Minister may remember the Question tabled by his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in April. It was made quite clear then that the feeling of the House was that one of the few things we could do immediately to help preserve the capercaillie was to ban shooting. Is he sure that the shooting ban will be acknowledged not only by the responsible shooters but also by the irresponsible shooters in the world? Phychologically, would it not be better to say that we will prohibit the shooting of these birds?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course there are irresponsible shooters around. Those are not the people with whom we are dealing. We discovered that the threat to the capercaillie does not come from the

273
sportsmen; it comes from the loss of habitat. It is in that area that we are conducting research to improve the habitat and therefore the long-term natural prospects for this fine bird.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in the interests of accuracy, is the noble Lord aware that the capercaillie is almost impossible to shoot due to its high wing loading? One may think it is travelling at 15 miles an hour and it is actually travelling at 70 miles an hour. Will he also inform the noble Baroness that they are quite edible? I understand that if the cock birds are buried for three months they can be eaten by very brave people.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the House is delighted by the additional information brought forward by the noble Lord.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the shortage of natural habitat of the capercaillie is a very good argument for encouraging afforestation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lady is correct. We should and we do encourage afforestation. It is also the right kind of forest that is important. The Forestry Commission is very forward in developing the Scots Pine forest, which is the main natural habitat of the capercaillie.
Lord Brain: My Lords, will the Minister agree that there is perhaps a need for a limited amount of culling of the older capercaillie? That would enable the younger and more productive birds to breed; therefore there is good reason for suitable controls.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right. Unfortunately we are delving into technical expertise, of which I have virtually none. That is the reason we have organisations like the NCC, which is leading the research.

Football Grounds: Toilets
3.28 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to ensure that toilets at football grounds comply with standards of public health and decency.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, local environmental health authorities have powers to ensure that adequate provision of sanitary facilities is made at places where sporting events are held. It is for them to judge what is appropriate in the light of local circumstances.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that conditions for visiting supporters at Chelsea football ground are very bad indeed? Similar conditions apply at the grounds of Wimbledon and Queen's Park Rangers. That apart, does he not agree that with the high prices charged for admission and for programmes it is time that toilets in football grounds were of decent modern standard for those who visit them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must agree with the noble Lord. Football clubs can apply for grants for such purposes. The Football Trust, chaired by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, makes available grants for up to 70 per cent. of the approved expenditure on the installation of new toilet facilities at football grounds, to a maximum of £50,000.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, as a Queen's Park Rangers supporter, perhaps I may say that although the toilet facilities at the ground are not exactly luxurious they are not in the decadent state suggested by the Minister.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord just said, can he tell us whether he uses the executive boxes?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I should intervene at this point and say that facilities vary throughout the country.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last Budget made available funds for football in general? Is he also aware that increasing sums of money are being found by the Football Trust for the improvement of football grounds? Will the Minister urge the new sports Minister to stress to the football grounds that they should give priority to providing modern toilets of an acceptable standard, bearing in mind that even at some First Division grounds the toilets are an absolute disgrace?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I will certainly make sure that my honourable friend the Minister for Sport is aware of what the noble Lord said. Members of the public can complain to environmental health authorities if they feel that facilities are not up to standard. Local authorities have power to serve a notice on the owners or occupiers of any place occasionally or normally used for sport to upgrade facilities.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, having regard to the vast sums of money—amounting to millions—that are spent by the clubs on the purchase of a single player, can they not provide decent toilets as well?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend has a point. As I said, a large amount of money—over £100 million—will be available from the Football Trust over the next five years for the improvement of football grounds.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some clubs have received substantial sums of money from the Football Trust for ground improvements but have not spent one penny of that money on improving their toilets? Surely that is wrong.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is for the football clubs to decide how they spend their money. As I said previously, if members of the public are not satisfied with facilities they can complain to the local environmental health authority.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am referring not only to male toilets but also to female toilets? I cannot visit them but I have had good information that they need attention.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it would be advisable if I kepi out of female toilets as well.

Business
3.33 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Gulf hostages.
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 about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1990 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debate, 12th December
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Elton set down for 12th December shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Cawley, L.

Grey, E.

Jacques, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Renton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Thurlow, L.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to ask a simple question. The Motion has in thick type the preface, "Standing Orders (Private Bills)". However, the Motion itself is not confined to Private Bills but is in respect of a Select Committee on the Standing Orders. What is the true position? Naturally I am interested because I am surprised —I
276
do not complain about the surprise—to find that my name is included among the members of the Select Committee.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Select Committee deals with Standing Orders on Private Bills and has nothing to do with other Standing Orders. I apologise if the noble Lord was not aware that he was on the Select Committee, but perhaps I may have some words with him later.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Hybrid Instruments:—

Cawley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thurlow, L.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wonder whether I may make a short statement concerning the Opposition's view on amendments to Parts III and IV. We are concentrating on Part III rather than Part IV but the expectation is that any successful amendments would be followed by consequential amendments to Part IV. I believe the Minister accepts that, but perhaps it would be of assistance to clarify the position.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite understand the position. The noble Lord will see that the government amendments cover both the English and the Scottish provisions, and should anything further arise from this afternoon's debate naturally we would expect that to cover the other part.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 42 [Streets, street works and undertakers]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 23, leave out lines 4 to 9 and insert ("In this Part a street includes any highway and any road, lane, footpath, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, and includes any part of a street.").
The noble Lord said: I draw the Committee's attention to the words used in the amendment. They are exactly the same as the interpretation of the word "street" in Section 329 of the Highways Act 1980. Why is that definition not used in this Bill? As the Bill is closely connected to the 1980 Act, surely a uniform approach is desirable. If there is a reason for changing the interpretation what do the Government propose to do about the 1980 Act? There seems to be some confusion between the 1980 Act and the wording in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can explain the position very briefly. The words in the Bill follow the street works Act of 1950 which contains a rather wider definition than the narrower definition used in the Highways Act 1980. The effect of the amendment would be to exclude from the provisions of this part of the Bill all street works carried out in land laid out as a way, whether or not it is for the time being formed as a way, and which is not either a highway, road, lane, footway, alley, passage, square or court. For example, utility works on the route of a proposed road on an estate which is still being built would not be regulated by the provisions of the Bill.
We believe that it is preferable to keep the definition of "street" which derives from the 1950 Act and is drawn sufficiently wide to cover all places of that kind where undertakers have statutory rights to carry out work. No good would come of disapplying the provisions of the Bill to works in ways over land and it might result in a loss to do so. I hope that explanation answers the noble Lord's concerns.
Lord Underhill: I understand the Minister's reply, but do we not now have a definition in this Bill based on the 1950 Act and a definition of the word "street" in the Highways Act 1980? Surely there will be some confusion for people who refer to those Acts.
Lord Tordoff: Will the Minister check on the position? There are references in this Bill to the 1980 Act and one wonders whether there may be an overlap of definition between the two Acts and this Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that there is not. I shall check the position. I have already explained why we prefer the definition in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 rather than that contained in the Highways Act.
Lord Underhill: It is best to sort these matters out before one replies in case one gives a wrong answer. I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said. I hope that he will bear in mind the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We do not wish to find ourselves with two definitions in the same Act. In the light of what the Minister has said, I shall look carefully at the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Roads, road works and undertakers]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 52, line 13, at end insert ("or with permission granted under section (Permission to execute road works)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 53, 56, 61 and 62. This amendment is intended to introduce in Scotland provisions broadly similar to those included in Clause 44 for England and Wales. However, in doing so we have had regard to the differences which already exist in the provisions applying north and south of the Border to persons wishing to place apparatus in a road. Our intention is to bring within the framework of this Bill the great majority of cases where apparatus is being placed in a road and to cease to rely exclusively on the provisions contained in Section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
So far as we are aware, no difficulties have been experienced in the operation of Section 61 of the 1984 Act which allows roads authorities to grant permission, subject to conditions, to persons to place apparatus in a road. However, we took the view that increasingly it was likely that cases would arise of persons, companies or other institutions seeking to lay cables, pipes or other such equipment in circumstances very similar to those of the statutory undertakers. Therefore, it would make good sense to have these operations controlled by the legislation that we are now considering and to have the other undertakers subject to the duties and conditions set out in Part IV of the Bill. In that respect what would be achieved by this amendment corresponds to the situation provided by Clause 44 for England and Wales.
I shall now briefly refer to the consequential amendments. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 ensure that the meaning of "roadworks" and "undertaker" are extended to cover the cases being brought in by the new clause. Amendment No. 61 extends the offence of carrying out unauthorised works to those who do not carry out the work in accordance with the terms on which permission is given under the new clause. Amendment No. 62 is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I appreciate the amendments which the Minister has tabled. It is obviously desirable that the English and Scottish parts of the Bill should be aligned so that there is parity of treatment for all parties carrying out road works in connection with apparatus. That is important in relation to having uniform application across the UK of the other common aspects which are allied to this legislation. There are in particular the computerised street works register, national specification and intervention limits, inspection fees, restriction on openings following road works and application of any prescribed fees for occupation of road space.
I ask the Minister two questions in order to ensure that the two regimes are aligned as closely as possible. The Minister may not have the answers to hand. We have more time with this Bill and these matters can be dealt with later if necessary. Can the Minister say what types of work are likely to be prescribed in subsection (2) (b) and (c) of the new clause in Amendment No. 56? Can he also say how the issues to be dealt with for England and Wales in Schedule 3 to the Bill are to be

279
covered by the Scottish legislation? As I say, the Minister may not have the information available, but I shall be happy to receive it before the Report stage.
Lord Strathclyde: Schedule 3 is based on the provisions of the Highways Act which currently applies to street work licences in England and Wales. No similar provision was introduced by the Roads (Scotland) Act in relation to permission to place apparatus. There have been no representations that detailed provision on the lines of Schedule 3 was required. The authorities in Scotland will be free to set conditions when granting permission. These could include the kind of matters covered by Schedule 3 if that is desired. Experience in Scotland suggests that it is unnecessary to specify these matters in the same detail. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said, and if I have omitted anything I shall write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 52, line 23, at end insert ("or a person having permission under section (Permission to execute road works) to execute road works, as the case may be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 43 [The street authority and other relevant authorities]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 23, line 39, leave out from first ("authority") to second ("the") in line 40.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment designed to ascertain the Government's plans for implementing the provisions of this part of the Bill in areas where the local highway authorities do not act as agents for the Department of Transport in relation to trunk roads. As drafted, subsection (2) of the clause means that where a local authority acts as an agent for the Department of Transport on trunk roads, that authority will act for the Secretary of State as the highway authority in relation to Clauses 47 to 53 of the Bill. That is an extremely sensible arrangement and undoubtedly represents a most economic, efficient and effective way of dealing with trunk roads.
Unfortunately, the future of the arrangements where local authorities act as the agents for the Department of Transport on trunk roads is very much in doubt. In September this year the Secretary of State informed seven London boroughs that he was terminating their agency arrangements despite a consultants' report commissioned by the department itself which recommended that the first stage of any bid to improve the performance of the London highway agents should be the establishment of clearer arrangements between the department and the London boroughs.
The local authority associations have argued that the ability of local highway authorities to co-ordinate developments, such as street works, on both the trunk and local road networks, is central to the justification for the continuation of the agency arrangements. Clause 42(2) represents a clear example of the benefits
280
of the existence of the agencies. However, the Bill does not address itself to the way in which matters are to be handled in areas where the agency arrangements have been terminated. How can the key co-ordinating function be undertaken effectively if a small part of the highway network—that is to say, the trunk roads—is the responsibility of one organisation, which will almost certainly be private consultants, while the local highway authority is responsible for the majority of the network?
How are the interests of local residents to be protected? Can the Minister assure the Committee that this is unlikely to be a more widespread problem? I await with great interest the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, explained, the effect of this amendment would be to make each local highway authority responsible for the registration and co-ordination of undertakers' street works on trunk roads in their area regardless of whether or not the Secretary of State had appointed them as his agent for the maintenance of those roads. That would make no sense. Where the local highway authority does not act as the Secretary of State's agent for the maintenance of trunk roads, such as the eight London boroughs which the noble Lord mentioned and which from next year will not exercise that function, undertakers of street works will be required to deal with the Secretary of State or his appointed agent for the purpose of the Bill. In practice, satisfactory arrangements will be made with the consultants who have been or will be appointed as agents for the day-to-day management of trunk roads in those areas.
Naturally they will have to co-ordinate with the other highway authorities in the same way as two adjoining highway authorities would under the Bill as it stands. Local residents will be no more affected by this arrangement than they would be if the highway authority was remaining the Secretary of State's agent. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Underhill: I appreciate the Minister's reply. I put this down as a probing amendment. I shall read his explanation and comments and then decide whether we should come forward with a definite amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Local authorities: supply of services for carrying out of street works, etc
.A local authority shall be entitled to offer to supply services for the carrying-out in its area of street works, and reinstatement, on behalf of an undertaker, and may supply such services if such an offer is accepted.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Government Amendments Nos. 179 and 180. It was my intention to deal with this matter at some length but I am pleased to note that Amendments Nos. 179 and 180 are designed to write on the face of the Bill the right of highway authority direct labour organisations to tender for utility work.

281
They appear to conform with the requirements of the local authority associations and the right is defined in broad terms as requested by the local authority associations. It is therefore my intention, after hearing the Government's explanation of their amendments, to withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 179 and 180. The amendments fulfil an undertaking I gave at Second Reading to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I said then that highway authority direct services organisations would be allowed to tender for work. Doubts had been expressed, although we were clear in our own mind that they would be able to do so. However, as doubts had been expressed, we tabled these amendments. They should meet the noble Lord's concern.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what I thought was the intention of the amendments. I appreciate the fact that the Government have looked carefully at what was said at Second Reading. I shall withdraw my amendment and support the government amendments when we reach them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 98, insert the following new clause:

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]

  Permission to execute road works
  (" .—(1) A road works authority may grant permission in writing, subject to such reasonable conditions as they consider appropriate, to persons to whom this section applies—

  (a) to place, or to retain, apparatus in a road, and

  (b) thereafter to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair, alter or renew the apparatus, change its position or remove it,

  and to execute for those purposes any works required for or incidental to such works (including, in particular, breaking up or opening the road, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or tunnelling or boring under the road).
  (2) This section applies to persons who are described in one or more of the following paragraphs—

  (a) persons of a prescribed class,

  (b) persons carrying out works of a prescribed class,

  (c) persons carrying out works in a prescribed area.

  (3) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) may include conditions as to—

  (a) the payment of fees,

  (b) the future cessation or withdrawal of the permission, and

  (c) indemnification of the authority against claims arising out of what is permitted.

  (4) Before granting permission under subsection (1), the authority shall give not less than 10 working days' notice of their intention to do so to any other person whose apparatus is, or plans for the installation of apparatus are, likely to be affected by the works which would be authorised by that permission.
  (5) Where permission has been granted under section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in respect of apparatus and the road works authority consider that permission could be granted under this section in respect of that apparatus, they may cancel the permission granted under section 61 of the 1984 Act and, if they cancel that permission, they shall substitute for it permission granted in accordance with subsection (1) above.
  (6) The works referred to in subsection (1) above do not include works for road purposes.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Street works licences]:
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 57:
  Page 87, line 25, after ("persons") insert ("in particular blind and disabled persons").
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak at the same time to my Amendment No. 59. Grouped with these amendments are Government Amendments Nos. 58, 89, 95, 105, 110, 150, 153, 184, 186, 187 and 190.
  Amendment No. 57 would impose a general duty in the conditions attached to a street works licence to minimise inconvenience to blind and disabled people. I prefer my amendments to those tabled by the Government, although I do in fact welcome them, because they emphasise the disability of blindness which so often goes unnoticed. Sighted people do not seem to realise what the blind or those with bad sight do not notice.
  Schedule 3 sets out the conditions which may be attached to a licence. These include general safety conditions and a general duty to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street. I believe that this must be accompanied by a particular duty to those who are blind and disabled. As the Horne Report stated:
  "We have received both written and oral evidence, which makes it abundantly clear that the standards which the utilities lay down are not always observed in practice… However, the impression we have is that even in these cases the excavations rarely pose a real danger to pedestrians who are sighted and sober. But they do undoubtedly pose a real hazard to the blind. We heard of cases in which blind people had fallen into openings that were inadequately guarded".
  Utility works that block or partially block the footway can be a serious hazard for a disabled person, particularly one in a wheelchair. Wherever works obstruct the footway so that less than one metre's width remains, an alternative route for pedestrians should be provided on the edge of the carriageway. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, put down this amendment, though I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on taking up this position at an early stage of the Bill. With respect, I think that the Government's amendment encompasses blind people. That is a matter of definition as concerns the law, but in the course of debate it is absolutely right that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, should give specific emphasis to this disability.
  It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could disclose the incidence of accidents affecting blind people in the situations described by the noble Lord. The Committee could then get a measure of the problem. The invaluable briefing material provided by RADAR makes a general reference to this situation. It is only a general reference, so it would be helpful if some statistical information could be provided by the Government, not necessarily immediately but perhaps in reply to a Question for Written Answer. If the

  283
  Minister could indicate that he would be in a position to respond within the reasonable future it would be of interest not simply to the Committee but to the nation as a whole. We could then see the extent of the problem.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I welcome the amendment put down by the Government. I was glad that my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated his assent when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the reference to disability encompassed the blind. I have had the privilege of watching guide dogs being trained with their owners. I recognise that the fortunate few who have a guide dog have a means of avoiding traps and dangers. Guide dog owners amount to only about 4,000 of the 150,000 registered blind in this country. For the vast majority of blind people who have to use our streets the dangers remain very substantial. It is absolutely right and very much to be welcomed that there should be a specific duty on the licence holder to take the necessary precautions to minimise those risks. The accidents that occur make one realise the hazards that blind people have to negotiate in the streets when works are not carried out properly. I very much welcome the amendment.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Tordoff: As my name is also attached to this amendment, I too welcome the fact that the Government have taken the issue under their wing. I speak as one who is not desperately well informed on the matter. My daughter has recently trained as a rehabilitation officer for the blind and I therefore receive little snippets of information from her about the practical difficulties faced by blind people.
  I certainly accept for the moment the "nod" given by the Minister—and trust that it will shortly be translated into words—as confirmation that the wording in his amendments includes all forms of disability, including blindness. However, there is an aspect in Amendment No. 106, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, myself and others, which needs to be underlined. While I understand that the amendment may cause the Government difficulties in relation to the provision of audible hazard indicators—because these can be a nuisance to neighbours —the reference to,
  "solid barriers of not less than 1 metre in height,"
  is important to people who are visually impaired, especially those, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred who do not have the benefit of guide dogs. People who use white sticks need barriers of a different height from that which applies to sighted people.
  Therefore, I hope that within the terms of the government amendment it will be possible to lay down a code of practice to ensure that these tactile signs and barriers are included in a proper form by which the undertakers can set their standards.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: As a supporter of these amendments, I should like to hear the Minister's explanation before considering the reasons why my noble friend Lord Swinfen thought it necessary to single out blind people and place particular emphasis
  284
  on them. I sought advice from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who has a blind daughter. He tells me that blind people are registered as disabled. Therefore, it seems that the government amendments may be satisfactory. However, as the amendments extend to cover Scotland, do they also cover Northern Ireland? I ask that question because I am sure that there are just as many such hazards, and perhaps even more, in Northern Ireland as there are in other parts of Britain.
  Baroness Phillips: I express my support for the amendment. We should emphasise to the Government the importance of ensuring that there are strong penalties applicable to those who contravene regulations or codes of practice. I recall the discussion we had about cars being parked on the pavement. I remember the tremendous correspondence I received because I referred especially to the problems of the disabled and the blind.
  However, what do we see today? We can walk down any street in London—indeed, any street in any town—and see cars and vans parked in very dangerous positions on the pavement. This means that all of us have to walk out into the road in order to be able to proceed. Further, one never sees anyone taking action to have the cars removed. They seem to remain there day after day and week after week. It is quite useless for us to sit here in this place producing various Acts of Parliament if we do not have appropriate officers to follow up the procedures in order to ensure that the legislation is actually put into effect.
  I am sure we have had the experience of falling down large holes in pavements where there has been no prior warning. You do not have to be blind or disabled to experience this; you merely have to walk along the road with your head held in a normal position. You may suddenly find yourself in a large hole. I have experienced this. I set up a kind of "indignation" meeting of citizens in the area. They agreed with me and said, "Yes, the council never does anything about it". We must ensure that the provisions of such legislation are carried out; otherwise, rather than improving the situation we shall merely add another hazard to those which are already faced by the blind and the disabled.
  Lord Shepherd: As the noble Baroness has taken the matter a little further than the issue contained in the amendment, perhaps I may be permitted to be a little more guilty in this respect. One of the increasing dangers, even for sighted people, is what is happening where the kerb has—quite rightly—been smoothed out and lowered in order to allow perambulators and wheelchairs to be moved more easily from the pavement across the road. However, there is no sign to indicate that this has been done. I have seen many people walking along the pavement who have not noticed the inclination and who have literally fallen into the road. This has happened because there is no warning sign stating that the kerbstones have been lowered. When local authorities are carrying out such alterations for very good reasons, I believe that there should be some kind of special colouring by the kerb, or a sign, to warn people that there has been an alteration and that there is a slope in the pavement. I

  285
  hope that the Minister will at some stage think about that aspect of the matter. In my view it is worthy of consideration.
  Earl Attlee: I support the amendment tabled in the name of the Minister. I believe that the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, does not take into account those people who are partially sighted. If a person's sight is really bad, the difficulty experienced can be just as bad as being blind.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: As Members of the Committee will be aware, the Bill provides that a street authority granting a street works licence to a person who does not have a statutory right to do works may attach certain conditions to the licence. These include such conditions as it considers appropriate in the interests of safety and to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street. Such persons will clearly include blind and disabled people. We accept the importance of considering the needs of these groups of people at all stages in the planning of street works, including works carried out under street works licences. The government amendments to this provision will achieve that effect.
  The amendments make specific provision for the needs of the disabled throughout this part of the Bill. They have been tabled in response to requests made by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Swinfen, that specific reference be made in the Bill to the special needs of people with disabilities.
  Perhaps I may now briefly outline the government amendments. The amendments to Schedule 3 and to Clauses 53, 58 and 74 emphasise that the street authority or the undertakers, as is appropriate in each case, must have particular regard to the needs of people with disabilities in discharging their relevant duties. The first concerns the attachment by the street authority of corresponding conditions to street works licences; the second places a corresponding duty on street authorities in discharging their duty to co-ordinate works under Clause 53; the third amendment places corresponding requirements on undertakers in discharging their duty regarding the placing, maintenance or operation of traffic signs under Clause 58; and the fourth amendment places corresponding requirements on undertakers in discharging their duty to maintain their apparatus in accordance with the provisions of Clause 74.
  The amendment to Clause 95 contains a new provision which is necessary as a consequence of the new references to people with disabilities in the earlier clauses and in Schedule 3. It provides that Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 applies additionally to this part of the Bill. The effect of this is to empower the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations prescribing the types of disability to which the above references in this part of the Bill apply. I can assure my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the Committee that the definition provided by this amendment of people with a disability would allow blind people to be included within the definition of disabled people. In fact, I can go further and say that it will do so.
  286
  The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether I had any figures as regards accidents. I am afraid that we have no reliable figures relating to accidents caused by utility works, still less as regards those which affect particular groups of people such as blind persons. Therefore, I cannot undertake to provide an answer to that question.
  The purpose of the Bill is to improve matters for all pedestrians. I can say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I of course take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but, as I said, the whole purpose of the Bill is to improve matters for all users of the highway or pavement.
  I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for her kind words about the government amendments. She asked whether the Bill applied to Northern Ireland. No, Parts III and IV of the Bill apply to England, Wales and Scotland only. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will monitor the progress of the measures carefully and will decide whether similar regulations should apply in due course in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will come to the correct conclusion. I hope that with what I have said my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that the Committee will feel able to support the government amendments when we reach them.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend sits down, is he aware of the National Federation of the Blind's current campaign which goes under the slogan "Give us back our pavements"? If he is not, is he prepared to find out about it and receive a deputation from that organisation? With the amount of clutter, apart from street works, that is now to be found on our pavements, the passage for blind people is becoming increasingly hazardous, and something needs to be done about it.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister replies, he may have heard on the radio this morning that a new device for hazard warnings for blind people has just been invented which seemed to be hopeful.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I take on board what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said. I have not heard of that campaign, and I shall inform myself of it. As I said earlier, the Bill should improve things, although the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was asking for more signs to be erected on the pavements. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I neglected to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about tactile surfaces and hazard warnings. The noble Lord will find that we reach that point on a later amendment.
  Lord Swinfen: I do not want to prolong the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned ramps. We do not need signs. We need just to change the colour of the paving. That would be helpful for the vast majority of people with poor sight and those who are not so stable on their legs as others.
  I am concerned that there should be proper warning of road works. Most Members of the Committee will have been inconvenienced by road works about which there have been insufficient warnings. That happens more frequently to people in

  287
  motor vehicles who go around a corner, find that there is no warning and have to put on their brakes in a hurry.
  I welcome the Government's amendments on this aspect of the Bill. It is an important matter. I am grateful that the amendments have been tabled, and I shall of course support them. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 58:
  Page 87, line 25, after ("street") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 45 [Prohibition of unauthorised street works]:
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 60:
  Page 25, line 10, at end insert:
  ("(4) If a person commits an offence under this section, the street authority may—

  (a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1) (a), direct him to remove the apparatus in respect of which the offence was committed, and

  (b) in any case, direct him to take such steps as appear to them necessary to reinstate the street or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it.

  If he fails to comply with the direction, the authority may remove the apparatus or, as the case may be, carry out the necessary works and recover from him the costs reasonably incurred by them in doing so.").
  The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 63. The amendment gives the street authority power to give a direction to an undertaker who executes works in contravention of the provisions of Clause 45—the prohibition of unauthorised works—and to take appropriate measures if the undertaker fails to comply with that requirement. In such cases the street authority may recover from the undertaker the reasonable costs of those measures.
  As presently drafted, although making it an offence to place apparatus or carry out street works without a statutory right or a street works licence, Clause 45 does not empower the street authority to require the removal of the apparatus or the immediate reinstatement of the road. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: In the final line of Amendment No. 60 there is a reference to the recovery of "costs reasonably incurred". That of course is a common form of wording. The word "reasonably" is imprecise. Has that given rise to litigation on any scale in the past? For the sake of more rapid progress and the avoidance of litigation, might it not be an advantage to have some arbitration procedure to determine the reasonableness of costs? If there were a substantial difference of view, litigation might extend for a long time. Might it not be worth while considering at this stage, and perhaps coming back at a later stage, whether some form of arbitration in such circumstances might be preferable?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I must admit that I am unaware of instances where that has happened. I know that "reasonably incurred" is a fairly common expression. I shall study what the noble Lord has said. In the end, as he says, of course such issues might end up in the courts, and so it might well be worth exploring his proposition.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 99 [Prohibition of unauthorised road works]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 53, line 22, at end insert ("or in accordance with a permission granted under section (Permission to execute road works)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 53, line 26, after ("consent") insert ("or permission").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 53, line 29, at end insert:
  ("(4) If a person commits an offence under this section, the road works authority may—

  (a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1) (a), direct him to remove the apparatus in respect of which the offence was committed, and

  (b) in any case, direct him to take such steps as appear to them necessary to reinstate the road or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it.

  If he fails to comply with the direction, the authority may remove the apparatus or, as the case may be, carry out the necessary works and recover from him the costs reasonably incurred by them in doing so.").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 60. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 46 [Emergency works]:
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 25, line 14, after ("cause") insert ("(a)").
  The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 65, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has no objection to Amendments Nos. 66 and 80 being joined in the debate. My amendments have two purposes. The first is to find out from the Government what is their interpretation of danger; and, secondly, to prepare the ground for widening the clause. As drafted, Clause 46 defines emergency works only in terms of those works which might cause danger to persons or property. It is considerably narrower than the definition to which public utilities have become accustomed by virtue of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.
  The problem is that urgent works may be necessary. One thinks of a failed electricity cable or a blocked water pipe servicing a block of flats, an old people's home or a hospital. While the works do not cause danger to the persons who live or work there or to

  289
  their property, they would be prevented from being carried out until the full statutory seven-day period of notice had expired. This seems a little unreasonable. The argument is that to exclude the scope for utilities of any kind to take urgent action does not make the case any less urgent. It merely means that the utility is denied the opportunity to deal with the works.
  Amendment No. 65 re-introduces that part of the Public Utilities Street Works Act which deals with substantial loss. One thinks—wildly perhaps but nevertheless there is this probability or possibility—of a contractual obligation to supply electricity to the Stock Exchange. If there is a failure but no great danger the utility would be unable to carry out the work. There may be a substantial law case against it for breach of its contractual obligation along the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned earlier. The utility would not be able to undertake that work. The purpose of these two amendments is to cover that, and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord opposite has to say about his two amendments before making further comments. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps not surprisingly I prefer the amendments that I have put down. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has a somewhat similar objective to the one I have sought to obtain in dealing with what we call "exempt works". However, the noble Lord's amendment dilutes the definition of emergency works in seeking to achieve that objective. With respect, that is not the aim that should be accomplished here. I believe that the concern of the utilities about restoring supply can be met by our definition of exempt works.
  One of the strongest criticisms made about the current system by the highway authorities has been the extent to which the utilities have allegedly abused the provision for emergency works. They have undertaken without prior notice works which could and should have been planned and co-ordinated sensibly. I know that the local authority associations place considerable importance on the definition of utility works in the Bill.
  Clause 46 confines the definition of emergency works to circumstances in which there is an,
  "existing or imminent … danger to persons or property".
  I respectfully suggest that that definition should be kept. I hope that the noble Lord will not insist on seeking to change it.
  When we debated the matter on Second Reading anxiety was expressed by a number of noble Lords on the utilities' concerns that the clause would mean that they could not respond rapidly, for example, to an interruption to a customer's supply. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, replied that the Government,
  "recognise the anxiety expressed by some utilities that the new definition of emergency works in Clause 46 could be so tightly drawn that the requirement to serve advance notice for other non-emergency works would result in a substantial loss to the utility or breach of a service obligation. Inevitably there will be some utility works where it will not be reasonable to expect that seven working days' notice [be] given before beginning works as required under Clause 49. It is proposed to deal with
  290
  cases which fall short of being immediate emergencies by prescribing appropriate lesser periods of advance notice or making exemptions from notice requirements and regulations".—[Official report, 20/11/90; col. 672.]
  With respect, I believe that that was the right way to go about the matter. I am informed that the local authority associations accept—inevitably they should accept it because logic leads in this direction—that there are certain circumstances which are short of an emergency as defined in the Bill in which a utility has to take action as quickly as possible.
  This category of works is defined in the draft of the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee code of practice on notification as exempt works. The definition of exempt works in the code of practice covers, for example, the interruption of a utility service or the avoidance of substantial loss to an undertaker.
  The key difference between "emergency works" and "exempt" works in the code of practice is that, while utilities would be able to undertake emergency works on any road at any time, a highway authority would be able to require that exempt works on a traffic sensitive street were not undertaken until, for example, the end of the rush hour. This is designed to ensure a fair balance of interests between the needs of the highway user and the utility customer.
  Thus to alleviate the natural concerns about the tight definition of emergency works that utilities have expressed, I encourage the Committee to see the principle of exempt works written onto the face of the Bill. However in order to ensure that the definition of emergency works is not diluted, the concept of exempt works should be introduced in a new clause rather than as an amendment to the definition of emergency works. We propose a new clause defining exempt works. The other part of the amendment makes it clear that, while the requirement in relation to advance notice does not apply to exempt works, the clauses dealing with directions as to the timing of work and traffic sensitive streets would apply.
  Lord Tordoff: I believe that we have to tread carefully and delicately in this area. We said at Second Reading that it was not our intention to tinker with the Bill any more than necessary because it is the result of fine balancing between the various interested parties: the utilities on the one hand and the highway authorities on the other. Therefore one is slightly reluctant to press amendments to the Bill.
  It seems to me that the Bill as it stands at the moment tilts against the utilities on emergency works rather more than is fair. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has made that case out very well. I suspect, however, that his amendment begins to tilt it too far in the other direction. Whether the amendment down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and myself, among others, is the right balance, I would not press to the limit.
  Will the Minister in his reply offer to come forward with a government amendment if the Government are not satisfied with our amendment in order to get the balance right? I hope that they will not maintain their position rigidly as the Bill stands at the moment. There

  291
  must be some adjustment in order to get the balance right. We are trying to achieve a balance in the Bill. Therefore I do not wish to press our amendments too strongly. I hope that there is some way out of the dilemma.
  Baroness Platt of Writtle: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I must again declare my interest as a non-executive director of British Gas. In the Bill "emergency works" are narrowly defined, as other noble Lords have said. They are related only to a public emergency such as the escape of gas. Undertakers are also under statutory obligations to restore supplies to customers. Unless this amendment is agreed to, they could be in breach of those obligations; the customer could have to wait seven days for a statutory notice to run its course. That could mean considerable hardship in winter weather, especially for households that include elderly people or young babies, if they are reliant on their supplies for heating or cooking. On Second Reading my noble friend stated that he hoped to exempt certain cases from the emergency requirements and regulations. I hope that he will accept the amendment that is proposed. I support the amendment.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Nugent of Guildford: I wish to make a point in slightly the opposite direction. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly said that the Bill appears to be slightly tilted against the utilities. That was inevitable because the 1950 Act did nothing in the interests of passing traffic. In view of the awful traffic problems that exist today, it is most desirable that we get the balance right this time. As has already been said by other Members of the Committee, the stretching of the word "emergency" in the past by the utilities rightly predisposed my noble friend the Minister to ensure that 'the new definition was more tightly drawn. I believe the definition is pretty satisfactory as it is now. It is, of course, a matter of absolute importance to get the balance right, but that balance involves leaving the utilities slightly less elbow room than they had before in taking advantage of what they regard as an emergency. I believe that step was necessary.
  Lord Tordoff: I do not disagree with the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, proposes. Those of us who have been very much involved in this area would agree that the balance needs to be tilted slightly away from the present situation of the utilities in favour of the road users. No one disagrees with that. We are merely saying that the case we are discussing is one of very few cases throughout the Bill where the balance has tilted a little too far and we are perhaps in danger of being slightly unjust to the utilities. That may be the result of the bad practices which have occurred in past years.
  Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord for further explaining his point. I sympathise with his argument. However, I believe we have a nice balance. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I really wished to make sure that he understands that he has my firm support in
  292
  obtaining the correct balance in the interests of the road user. I want to see the right balance achieved between road users and the utilities.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had a short but interesting debate on this subject. As has been explained, these amendments would have the effect of opening up the definition of "emergency works" for which an undertaker is relieved of his duty to serve advance notice by Clause 51. The 1950 Act provided a wide definition of "emergency works" which includes works likely to cause a substantial loss to the undertaker or breach of a service obligation. However, as my noble friend Lord Nugent and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, have said, the present "emergency works" procedures have been widely abused, with the result that highway authorities receive little or no advance notice of many utility works involving breaking up roads in their area. Although less wide than the 1950 Act definition, considerations of substantial loss or breach of service obligation could nonetheless cover many thousands of works which would not be regarded by road users as true emergencies. The new definition of emergency works in Clause 46 has been drawn deliberately tightly to include only works involving danger to persons or property.
  We do not accept that all works necessary to avoid substantial loss or a breach of an undertaker's service obligation should be treated in the same way as emergencies. Nor do we accept that all works necessary to restore a service should be treated in the same way. As I explained in my closing remarks during the debate on Second Reading, we recognise that there will be some utility works for which it will not be reasonable to expect seven working days' notice to be given before work is begun. In those cases, which could include certain works necessary to avoid substantial loss—my noble friend Lord Lucas referred to that kind of situation when moving the amendment —for breach of service obligation, lesser periods of advance notice or exemptions from notice requirements will be prescribed in regulations.
  These amendments recognise that special arrangements may have to be made for works on traffic sensitive streets or where it is necessary to direct the times of working to avoid serious disruption. I refer in this connection to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. That, too, is something for which appropriate provision can be made in the notice regulations.
  As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, a balance has to be found in this area. We believe that we have found that balance in the Bill as it stands at present, and in the regulations which will be made. I have given the assurance I am about to give before but it bears repeating. I assure the Committee that there will be full consultation between the department, the highway authorities and the utilities in drawing up the regulations. I met representatives of the utilities only a short while ago and this subject was discussed on that occasion. I hope that, in the light of my explanations and the assurance I have given, the amendments will not be pressed.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. We shall certainly consider carefully what he has said. I do not intend to press this matter at this point in time. However as a matter of principle, I would be prepared to offer a suggestion as regards a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The point about substantial loss to utilities could be incorporated in the thrust of Amendment No. 66, irrespective of whether it is to be included in the Bill or dealt with in regulations. However, that is a matter which we can discuss when the Minister considers this matter later. We have not reached Amendment No. 66 yet and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has to decide now what he wishes to do with his own amendment.
  Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, decides what to do with his amendment—I hope he decides to withdraw it—I wish to ask the Minister whether there is any chance of the draft regulations having reached the stage where some of us might be brought into the consultations before the Bill reaches its next stage. That would be a great help to us in deciding what we should do at that stage.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall certainly look into that matter. There are many regulations to be made under the Bill. Discussions have been continuing and will have to continue. However if it is possible to give some insight certainly into the present stage of our thinking, I shall inform the noble Lord of that.
  Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the Minister for those comments.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: This has been a useful debate. It is rather interesting to note that, after having appeared to be totally opposed to me in his initial remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has, certainly in one area, moved a little closer to my position during the course of the debate.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I was moved by the noble Lord's eloquence.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: It is very kind of the noble Lord to say that. I was of course aware of what my noble friend the Minister said on Second Reading. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, underlined, we always have some small misgivings when matters of some importance are taken away from the Bill, or perhaps not included in it, but are dealt with in regulations over which Parliament has so little influence. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle whose own knowledge from her particular interest was valuable and important.
  I hope that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford will forgive me for running across his line of drive on this occasion. While he and I normally agree that the road user should be somewhat hampered in a number of ways, the road user's rights and privilege to move along a roadway must be taken into account alongside the rights of those people whose services are connected with the roadway. I come back to the matter of balance on that point. I do not believe that the balance that appears in the Bill at the moment —I have no knowledge of what may appear in regulations—is absolutely right. The 1950 Act has stood a reasonable test of time. There have certainly
  294
  been abuses of that Act, as some Members of the Committee have said. Nevertheless, the general climate with regard to road usage has changed enormously. I have little doubt that all the utilities will have regard to that fact in any works that they undertake.
  I should like to study rather more carefully the exchange of views in the Committee to decide whether or not to take the matter further at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
  Lord Cavendish of Furness: This may be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

The Gulf: Hostages
4.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the hostages in Iraq and Kuwait.
"President Saddam Hussein has today addressed a letter to the Iraqi National Assembly requesting that the assembly 'allow all foreigners on whom restrictions were placed to enjoy the freedom of travel and to lift these restrictions'. This appears to mean that all foreign hostages in both Iraq annd Kuwait will, once the assembly has given its approval, be free to leave.
"The Government welcome this implementation of one of the UN Security Council's requirements. We have throughout been pressing for the release of all hostages. We are delighted for all the hostages and their families. They have suffered with great dignity and courage over the past weeks and months. We are in close contact with our embassy in Baghdad over the practical arrangements for the departure of all British citizens trapped in Iraq and Kuwait. The ambassador is actively seeking early clarification from the Iraqi authorities. We will then do everything in our power to help those concerned get home as soon as practicable.
"Saddam Hussein should now implement in full the UN resolutions, withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait and allow the legitimate government to return to that country".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I am sure that we all welcome the news about the hostages and the tremendous relief that it will bring to them and their families after four months of worry and apprehension. It is presumably a gesture by the Iraqi Government in response to the offer of meetings by President Bush. It may also be evidence that sanctions are taking effect.
The Statement says that the Government are in close touch with the embassy in Baghdad. Can the noble Earl say whether any details are available concerning, for example, the rate at which hostages may be released and the dates on which they may be released? Is it the case that the Government will be expected to make transport arrangements to bring the hostages back to this country? Can the Minister say how many British hostages are left both in Iraq and in Kuwait?
We recognise that Saddam Hussein is merely complying with international law on human rights. However, there is a certain vagueness in the Statement, which uses the phrase "This appears to mean". Can the noble Earl clarify that point?
There is another point to be considered. As the noble Earl is aware, the Government have been presented with a bill for the upkeep of our hostages in Iraq. Is the Foreign Office prepared to meet that bill and will there be an offset in respect of the fees that Iraqi students in this country have been unable to pay to universities and colleges? While the Iraqis say that we owe money to them, they certainly owe money to us. Furthermore, what will be the position of the Kuwaitis who are being held in Iraq? They also are hostages. Will they now be entitled to return to their homes?
While again welcoming this belated development, we must recognise and emphasise that the treatment of the hostages in Iraq during the past four months has been contrary to international law.
Finally, we must bear in mind that this is only a start and only one of the conditions laid down in one of the United Nations resolutions—Resolution 664. We must therefore continue to support and sustain the United Nations in all these matters.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for the Statement that he has just read to us and for telling us the good news about the British hostages. It is good news for them and for their lamilies. I too hope that he will let us know how soon he hopes to be able to bring those people back. I should also like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said regarding the Kuwaiti hostages, who do not appear to be covered by the Iraqi proposal.
I should like to add that on the basis of the Statement there are no grounds for congratulating President Saddam Hussein for ceasing to behave unlawfully and in a wholly uncivilised fashion. There may be grounds for relief, but there are certainly no grounds for congratulation.
296
I note that President Bush has said that he welcomes the move as a hopeful sign. That is an unobjectionable statement. I do not know to what extent, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, it is connected with the withdrawal by the United States of its objections to a Middle East peace conference. It would seem that the two events, coming so close together, may well be connected.
I should also like to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in saying that this is merely one step and that there are a great many other conditions which have to be fulfilled before we can say that real progress has been made.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the Leader of the Opposition, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for welcoming the Statement. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that Saddam Hussein is merely rectifying the crime that he committed in breaking international law. The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that that is not a ground for congratulation. It is a ground for relief and for thankfulness on the part of the hostages and their families but not for congratulation to Saddam Hussein.
We believe that the decision to release foreign hostages must be a sign that the pressure on Saddam Hussein is beginning to tell. I echo what both noble Lords said that this is but a start in the procedure. There are other conditions of the Security Council resolutions which Saddam Hussein has yet to fulfil.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked for details of the rate of release of the hostages and the date of their release. I do not have much detailed in Formation at the moment and I understand that the matter is being discussed in the Iraqi National Assembly at the moment. However, we are in contact with the airlines and we shall make all the necessary arrangements as soon as it is clear that the detainees are able to leave and that they have exit visas in their passports.
We believe that there are about 440 British nationals in hiding in Kuwait. A further six are detained in Kuwait. Approximately 355 British nationals are at liberty in Iraq, although not free to leave the country, and a further 342 are detained by the Iraqis at strategic sites.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked for further clarification of the words in the Statement "This appears to mean". I cannot give him further clarification because the position is not clear at the moment. As I said, we are in touch with our embassy in Baghdad awaiting clarification from the Iraqis. I can assure the House, and in particular the noble Lord who asked the question, that I shall let it be known as soon as we have further details so that the information can be included in the Official Report.
Both noble Lords raised the question of the position of the Kuwaitis. We believe that Saddam Hussein must allow all foreigners, including the Kuwaitis, to leave. We do not accept at all the Iraqi

297
claim that Kuwait is part of Iraq. The letter that Saddam Hussein addressed referred to allowing all foreigners to leave. Let us hope that he fulfils that obligation as well. Both noble Lords summed up the position. We must continue with the firm stance that the United Nations is taking. We must give full support to the further implementation of all Security Council resolutions.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend able to answer the question, which I think was put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as to whether it was proposed, somewhat impudently, to demand a charge for the maintenance of the hostages while they have been detained? Is that a fact? If so, would it make more sense and be better international law if a payment were made to them by Saddam Hussein by way of compensation for his wholly unlawful act in detaining them, in many cases under conditions of great discomfort for a considerable period and without the slightest justification?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for not having answered that question. For people who are in financial difficulties in Iraq, we are paying the hotel, food and living expenses and providing some cash for emergencies to buy essential comforts. We can also help some of those in hiding in Kuwait. However, as my noble friend will understand, getting funds to them is difficult.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I am sure that if he were in the Chamber my friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury would also wish to express a welcome for the Statement that has been made. He and other Church leaders throughout the country have been exhorting their congregations and the nation in general to pray for the release of the hostages. I feel certain that this coming weekend he will wish to exhort the Churches to give thanks for this Statement.
I am in a unique position because of my work to encourage moderate Moslem leadership throughout the country and particularly in Bradford. There are 43 mosques in Bradford. I can assure the House that the moderate leadership in that city will also wish to welcome the Statement and give thanks for it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful for the words of the right reverend Prelate. I am sure that the whole House appreciated them too.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although this has been an extremely encouraging development, none of it could have happened unless the free world—the Americans and the British in particular—had not decided to take a military stand against Saddam Hussein? Despite what others may think, that military stance was the first and most successful step toward getting the hostages released. There must be full-scale discussions to try to resolve the problem without a war.
Does the noble Earl agree that military forces in Saudi Arabia must remain there until Saddam
298
Hussein leaves Kuwait and resolves that he will release all the hostages that he now holds? The key has always been our determination to meet his vulgar force with a better, civilised force.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord reaffirmed what I am sure is the wish of the House; namely, fully to support the United Nations. The Government would echo that sentiment. There exist a number of Security Council resolutions and the military option is there to be used if necessary. The noble Lord said that the first step was the reaction of the Americans and the British. I would say that that was the second step. The first step was the invasion by a fellow UN country—Iraq—which had already agreed the borders of Kuwait under United Nations' auspices in 1962.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can assist me in relation to foreign nationals other than Europeans or Americans who may come within the ambit of this release. Does he know whether there are many other nationals involved, particularly from the East? Could there be a consequent refugee problem? If so, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to do everything in their power to assist those people in getting them back to their rightful homes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that there are a considerable number of people involved from other countries, particularly the Far East, the Middle East and the sub-continent—that is to say, Indians and Pakistanis. A number of them have been able to leave but some have not. We hope that there will not be a refugee problem. The letter from President Saddam Hussein to the National Assembly asked "to allow all foreigners". We hope therefore that they will be free to go as well.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in an aside, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, raised an issue which seems to me to be crucial to the future development of this situation. He referred to the fact that last night there were reports from the United Nations that the United States is now offering the possibility of an international peace conference on the Middle East. That is something new. The noble Earl did not reply to that point, which I do not think was put in the form of a question. However, can he tell the House what is the information in the Foreign Office regarding the attitude of the United States towards an international peace conference as reported last night? Has the United States changed its mind? If so, what is the attitude of the British Government to the new proposition, which brings a totally new dimension into the situation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there has been a proposal for a Security Council resolution on the Middle East and negotiations are under way at the moment about the wording and the timing, particularly so far as concerns the Occupied Territories. We should welcome such a discussion, as we have said before. There is no change in government policy on that point. What is clear and remains government policy is that first of all Saddam Hussein must get out of Kuwait.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble kinsman a brief question which has not been put so far today. Does he agree with me that it must be very sad for the families who have lost relatives owing to the stress of being a hostage? Will there be any compensation from the Iraqi Government for those families?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we sympathise very much with the families which have suffered in whatever way from the invasion of an innocent country by a very powerful aggressor, and particularly those which have suffered loss of life. We have always said that we must seek every means to make sure that Saddam Hussein does not benefit in any way from his aggression.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl clarify what he said in his reply to me? He spoke of a new United Nations' Security Council resolution. Does he refer to a new resolution which includes the proposal for an international peace conference? If not, will he say whether he knows if the United States has changed its policy towards having an international peace conference? On the face of it, it would seem that last night's report—not today's but last night's—has had sc me bearing on the attitude of the Iraqis towards hostages.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I answered the question that the noble Lord first put to me. I said that negotiations were under way at the moment. Until we have the result of those negotiations it would be wrong for me to say anything which might mislead the House.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government and the Minister agree that, in the words reported from President Bush and the White House staff who are in South America at the moment, this is a hopeful sign?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is but a first step. Yes, we are pleased for the hostages and their families. There are no grounds for patting Saddam Hussein on the back and saying, "Well done". All he is doing is to rectify a grievous crime, breaking international law. He has a lot more to do yet.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, with respect, I did not ask whether Saddam Hussein should be patted on the back. I asked whether the Government agreed that this was a hopeful sign.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the National Assembly agrees and, when we find out the full details, all these foreigners who want to go are permitted to have exit visas and are allowed out, that is hopeful.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, can my noble friend explain further the answer that he gave to the question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter? I am not absolutely clear whether he meant that Her Majesty's Government expect people to pay for the privilege of being imprisoned by Saddam Hussein, that the Government will pay on their behalf or that, at some future date when the hostages have been safely brought back to this country, Her Majesty's Government will make sure that they are reimbursed by the Iraqi Government. As the noble Lord, Lord
300
Boyd-Carpenter, stated, it is absurd that the British taxpayers should have to pay out of their own pockets in order to allow Saddam Hussein to imprison people against their will.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is important that those who are in financial difficulties should be given help. We have sought to allow financial and other help to be given where it is urgently needed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself again into a Committee on the Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
5 p.m.
Clauses 46 and 100 agreed to.
Clause 47 [The street works register]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 67
Page 25, line 37, leave out from ("in") to ("the") in line 38.
The noble Lord said: it may be convenient to the Committee if I speak also to government Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. The purpose of the deletion that is proposed in Amendment No. 67 is to cover the point made at Second Reading that provision of a street works register is of considerable importance to the street works proposals. In addition, at Second Reading it was stressed that the part of subsection (5) which refers only to the street authorities being required to contribute towards the cost of the register arrangements should be removed. Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 seek to meet the concern of the local authority associations that the Bill refers only to the highway authorities contributing towards the cost of the register.
The government amendments enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify the information that is to be lodged on the register and set out a fee system. Those amendments go only part of the way to meeting the concerns of the local authority associations. Why have the Government not deleted the specific references in lines 37 and 38 to the highway authorities or street authorities contributing towards the costs? Amendment No. 67 is essential in order to meet the local authorities' concerns. I hope that the Government will appreciate the reason for proposing Amendment No. 67.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Amendment No. 67 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require street authorities to make contributions towards the cost of any arrangements which may be made for the keeping of a central street works register. We cannot accept that local highway authorities, who are beneficiaries of the new management tool represented by a central computerised register, should not contribute towards its cost. The Department of Transport is already funding the development of a computerised street works register in acknowledgement of its central importance to the proposals in the

301
Bill. However, the costs of establishing and running the system must properly be met by those who use it and benefit from its use.
The government amendments provide for regulations to require the payment of fees for the registration of information. This will allow the undertakers and other users of the register to be required to contribute towards its cost. There will be full consultation with the local authorities on any arrangements for a central register that may be prescribed, and the Government will seek to ensure that they bear a fair share of its cost.
The Bill, including Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, provides a fair balance between those who will pay for the register. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will understand that we cannot accept his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am very disappointed to hear the Minister's reply. For the benefit of the Committee, I should like to read out subsection (5) of Clause 47.
"If such arrangements are made the Secretary of State may require the street authorities to participate in and make contributions towards the cost of the arrangements."
As was stated at Second Reading, no one has any objection to the Government endeavouring to meet the cost of the arrangements. The street works register is regarded as very important. However, why is there reference only to the highway authorities meeting the cost? I agree with the Minister that those who use the Register should meet the costs. In that event, why is the reference in subsection 5 only to street authorities? The government amendment merely states:
"a person liable to pay the fee".
The liability to pay remains only on the highway authority. The Government can surely see the commonsense of removing the words:
"and make contributions towards the cost of the arrangements".
The Government could seek to amend their amendment by stating that the street authorities or the utilities will be liable to meet the cost of the arrangements. The Government have not seen the point. The utilities and the highway authorities should be included.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The government amendments make it clear that undertakers and other users of the register may be required to contribute towards the cost. We propose therefore that the cost should be shared between the users of the facility, whether they be the highway authority or whether they be the utilities. Having said that, the department has already put considerable funds into the scheme, and I think that that is a fair situation all round.
Lord Underhill: I thought that I had made it clear at Second Reading that no one is objecting to the Government seeking to recover the cost of the arrangements for setting up the street works register. However, I must come back to the point. If the Government intend that either the highway authorities or the utilities should contribute to the scheme, they should amend the words that I am seeking to take
302
out in subsection (5). I cannot see anything in the government amendment which cancels out what is said in subsection (5).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not think that I can take the matter any further except to say that I will look again at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. When the noble Lord is able to read what I have stated, he will see the intention of the Government. I will look at his remarks.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister. I am certain that if he discusses the matter carefully with department officials who have been taking part in discussions with both the utilities and the highway authorities, the force of my argument will be quite clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 25, line 38, at end insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to any register kept in pursuance of this section—

(a) requiring the registration of such information as may be prescribed, and

(b) requiring the payment of such fee as may be prescribed in respect of the registration of information of any prescribed description;

and the regulations may contain provision as to the person responsible for securing the registration of the information and the person liable to pay the fee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 101 [The road works register]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 54, line 11, at end insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to any register kept in pursuance of this section—

(a) requiring the registration of such information as may be prescribed, and

(b) requiring the payment of such fee as may be prescribed in respect of the registration of information of any prescribed description;

and the regulations may contain provision as to the person responsible for securing the registration of the information and the person liable to pay the fee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Advance notice of certain works]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 26, line 8, at end insert:
("(6) Requirements under this section shall prescribe that advance information, including information on the start date, expected duration and safety measures taken for blind and disabled persons is made available to local organisations of and for disabled people, including organisations of and for blind people.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would impose a duty to give advance notice of street works to local disability organisations including organisations of blind people. The Home Report on which the Bill is based specifically recommended that utilities and highway authorities should assist local organisations of blind or disabled people providing to their

303
members advance information about street works. The new computerised street works register established by the Bill will make it straightforward for authorities to fulfil that obligation. A service such as talking newspapers for the blind could effectively disseminate the information.
In 1986 their response to the Horne Report the Government accepted that recommendation—No. 50 —but have not yet implemented it in the Bill. Can the Minister tell the Committee why not? It should be noted that the amendment requires only advance notification of the more significant street works and does not include emergency works. Information provided to local organisations should include the expected duration of the works and any measures for disabled or blind people such as widths of passages for wheelchair users and audible or tactile indicators for blind people.
Following our discussion in relation to Amendment No. 57 I realise that this amendment is defective. It contains the word "blind" which is included in the definition of disability. Therefore, I shall not press the amendment but I warn the Government that if we do not have a satisfactory response I am likely to bring it back at a later stage in an in proved form. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: On the face of it, the case that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, requires a positive answer from the Government. The Home Report made a specific recommendation in relation to the matters to which he has adverted this afternoon. In 1986 the Government positively responded to that and I can imagine only that the omission on the face of the Bill is due to the fact that the Government propose to deal with the matter by regulation. However, we must wait to hear what the Minister says in that regard. There would be considerable advantage in including the matter on the face of the Bill. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister says and I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for having raised this extremely important issue.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to extend the amendment further than the requirement that information should be,
"made available to local organisations of and for disabled people, including organisations of and for blind people".
Many parts of the country are not covered by such organisations. I should like to see local radio stations being alerted by the firms involved, and there may be other useful avenues for passing on information which can be explored.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We recognise the importance of improving the availability of information to members of the public who may be most at risk from utility street works. That includes those people defined in my noble friend's amendment. The proposals in this Bill will both improve the safety measures associated with works in progress for the better protection of blind and disabled people and improve the availability of advance information on
304
planned works. As the Government pointed out in their response to the Home Report, the computerised street works register will provide a helpful source of information about street works for interested organisations.
We do not believe, however, that a mandatory requirement on undertakers of works to supply advance notice of all or even most of their works to particular local organisations would be an effective method of getting the information to those people who need it. What matters most is that information on the starting date and likely duration of those works most likely to affect blind and disabled people reaches them at the right time. In each of the big urban local authorities street works run into tens of thousands each year, with each work subject tc several notice requirements at different stages.
We would propose instead that the highway authorities and utilities nationally should discuss the most effective way of using the computerised street works register and the regular liaison meetings proposed between local highway authorities and undertakers to make information on the nature and timing of street works in their area available to the relevant local organisations representing blind and disabled people. Suitable guidance on chat would then be included in the code of practice to be approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 53 giving practical guidance to local authorities on the discharge of their duty to co-ordinate works.
I hope that that answer is sufficiently positive to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to convince my noble friend that the provision provides a positive way forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not sure that that fully answers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. At a later stage we should like to hear more from the Minister about the form of the guidance. If highway authorities and utilities do not carry out this function pursuant to the guidance would they be guilty of a misfeasance? If a matter was placed in the hands of the local government ombudsman would the authority, for example, be able to say, "It is only a guideline; it is not a duty that is imposed upon us"?
I believe that we should go further than the Minister's proposal today. However, I do not recommend that the matter is pressed now. The Minister has given indications of the Government's thinking, albeit in our view inadequate indications. I urge him to make a fuller statement on Report because I suspect that the amendment will be tabled again. I do not recommend that it is pressed tonight.
I wish to draw another matter to the Minister's attention. The Home Report could not have been more specific. The Minister has widened the argument to the benefits that would be available in terms of the safety of street works and so forth subsequent to the Bill becoming law. We have a specific recommendation but I am afraid that I do not have in front of me the Government's response to the report. A specific recommendation was made in the Horne Report and I understood that the Government had made a specific

305
response. I believe that the Government need to go considerably further than the Minister has indicated today.
Lord Swinfen: I gained the impression from my noble friend that it would be up to organisations of disabled people to find out the information from the register for themselves. Many of them are not very wealthy and would be in considerable difficulties over that. I have listened to what my noble friend said. For the reasons which I gave earlier, I shall not press the amendment this evening. I feel like an individual to whom the Minister has given a glass of milk, only to find that it is very sour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Notice of starting date of works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 26, line 14, after ("give") insert ("not less than").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 74. These are drafting amendments which bring the notice period under Clause 49 into line with other similar notice-giving provisions in this part of the Bill. It requires that an undertaker shall give notice no fewer than seven working days before works have begun. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 26, line 19, leave out from ("works") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of moving Amendment No. 72 is to ascertain the Government's thinking with regard to Clause 49(2). Clause 48(1) sets out the basic requirement that seven days' notice is to be given on any street works. The clause goes on to define the types of works which will be subject to the notice requirement.
The first part of Clause 49(2) allows for different periods of notice to be specified for particular types of work. The HAUC—the Highway Authority and Utility Committee's working party—in looking at that area, recommended, for example, that there should be three days' notice for minor footways work and one months' notice for major utility projects. Subsection (2) states:
"cases may be prescribed in which no notice is required".
Given the background to which I have referred and the definition of works contained in Clause 49(1), the associations are unclear as to which circumstances are likely to be prescribed as not requiring a notice to be served. I hope that in his response to this amendment, the Minister can spell out the precise circumstances envisaged by the Government in including that provision in subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations cases in which undertakers are not required to give any notice to the relevant
306
authorities before starting certain street works. That would be an unwelcome limitation. It has been estimated that between 3 and 4 million street works involving breaking up the street take place each year, although when those involving only "opening" the street are included—for example, the lifting of a manhole cover to allow access for an inspection of apparatus—the figure may be even higher. We would not want the system of notification required by the Bill to become so burdensome in practice for very minor works that it ceased to fulfil its primary purpose of allowing the co-ordination of all works. Experience of the 1950 Act shows what can happen when a notice system becomes unworkable.
Therefore, although there is no specific proposal to make exemptions from the proposed notice requirements, the ability to do so by regulations is regarded as an important practical consideration. I hope that that explains this provision.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my noble friend will give the Committee some idea of the class of case in which it is contemplated that it may be prescribed that no notice is required. I take my noble friend's point that it would be quite ridiculous to insist upon notice for cases in which streets are quite mildly interfered with. On the other hand, where the line is to be drawn between cases in which notice must or must not be given is quite important. It will be very helpful to me if my noble friend can tell the Committee the broad category of case in which it is intended to make exemptions as regards the necessity of a notice.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am very happy to give one example; namely, lifting a manhole cover. There may be others. At present we have no specific proposals for exemptions, but I believe that my noble friend will agree that the example I have given is one where there should not be a necessity to give notice.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving the Government's thinking behind this clause. I shall endeavour to take advice from the HAUC working party, which has gone into this matter, in order to ascertain whether or not to pursue the matter further. This was a probing amendment. I have been given the Government's reasons, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 26, line 29, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the contravention was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—

(i) a relevant authority, or

(ii) the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 79 and 83. Those amendments replace the provisions which give an undertaker a possible defence for failure to give

307
notice of the starting date of works under Clauses 49 and 51 and the equivalent Scottish clauses. That is in order to cover all legitimate reasons for an undertaker's failure to notify an authority or a person affected by works. As presently drafted, the provisions apply only to failure by an undertaker to notify a person with apparatus in the street where he did not know the position or existence of that apparatus. The amendments extend the grounds for a defence to include, in addition, circumstances in which an undertaker has failed to notify a relevant authority or person to whom the apparatus belongs because he was unaware of the identity or address of the authority or person in question. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this amendment because there was an obvious lacuna in the Bill as originally drafted which would have represented possible prejudice of a considerable degree to a person in a position to put up the defence which is now represented by paragraph (b). That would not have been available without the inclusion of that paragraph. I believe that the Minister and his advisers have been very perceptive about that and deserve the appreciation of the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Notice of starting date of works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
Page 54, line 32, after ("give") insert ("not less than").
Page 55, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the contravention was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—

(i) a relevant authority, or

(ii) the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Power to give directions as to timing of street works]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 26, line 44, after ("traffic") insert ("or pedestrians").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104, 183, 185, 189 and 192. Members of the Committee will recall that when the Bill was debated on Second Reading, I raised the question of the position of pedestrians because the Bill referred only to "traffic". At that time the Minister said that "traffic" included pedestrians. I am pleased that he has had discussions with the department because I note that Amendments Nos. 183 and 135 give the definition:
"'traffic' includes pedestrians and animals".
308
We had overlooked the question of animals in putting forward "pedestrians". I am delighted with the government amendments. I moved this amendment to obtain the Government's reasoning—which I fully accept—and intend later to withdraw it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may join in the thanks to the Government for taking this on board. There is a tendency in highways and road traffic Bills to forget about pedestrians. I am glad that your Lordships' Committee has not overlooked them this time. I am also glad that in drafting the Bill the Government have not fallen back on the assumption that pedestrians are animals.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Government Amendments Nos. 183, 185, 189 and 192 are self-explanatory. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made his point and also mine. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 76 and hope that we can agree the government amendments when we reach them.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies perhaps I could reverse my question. Would not the Government consider that pedestrians are animals so the word "animals" could be used rather than "pedestrians"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall not respond to that. Of course we cover ourselves by using both words.
Lord Underhill: In the light of the discussion on the Government's amendments I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 76.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Notice of emergency works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 27, line 14, after ("works") insert ("shall, if the works are").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 77, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 81 and 82. These are minor drafting amendments. Together they correct any lack of clarity concerning the notice provisions of subsection (2) of this clause. They make clear that the requirement to give notice of emergency works applies to all works in respect of which notice would otherwise be required under Clause 49. The first and second amendments do the same for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 78 and 79:
Page 27, line 15, leave out ("shall").
Page 27, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the contravention was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—

(i) a relevant authority, or

(ii) the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

309
and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. With the leave of the Committee I shall move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 105 [Notice of emergency works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 83:
Page 55, line 30, after ("works") insert ("shall, if the works are").
Page 55, line 31, leave out ("shall").
Page 55, line 41, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the contravention was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—

(i) a relevant authority, or

(ii) the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: All the amendments to this clause have been spoken to. With the leave of the Committee I beg to move Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Restriction on works following substantial road works]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 28, leave out lines 12 and 13.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 84, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 85. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the circumstances in which a utility would be able to carry out street works following substantial road works.
Clause 52 prevents a utility from digging up a street which has been subject to substantial road works provided that the highway authority gave the utilities adequate notice of its plans. The ban, if I may use that word, lasts for 12 months following completion of the work. In many ways this clause goes to the heart of the public's perception of the holes in the road problem—the widespread criticism generated when a recently resurfaced road is dug up by a utility. It is important in terms of the credibility of the new legislation.
At Second Reading a number of noble Lords referred to the utilities' concern that this clause could, for example, unfairly penalise a householder who wished to have a new service connection. In response to that argument the Minister said that,
310
"provision can be made either with the agreement of the highway authority or by regulations to allow suitable exemptions to be made. Customers will not have to wait months for supplies".
The highway authorities believe that this is a very important clause. They would not wish to see its impact diluted. However, the authorities share the utilities' concern that emergency works and service connections which genuinely could not have been planned before the road works were undertaken should not be caught by the ban on street works.
Clause 52(5) makes clear that a highway authority should not unreasonably withhold its consent for works to be undertaken. However, it is unfortunate that subsection (4) contains the words "substantially begun". Amendment No. 84 in effect removes that ambiguous phrase. Amendment No. 85 attempts to meet the utilities' concern by making clear that one of the cases in which consent should not be withheld is in order to restore or provide a service connection which could not reasonably have been executed before the expiry of the notice period.
These amendments are supported not only by the highway authorities but by the National Joint Utilities Group and the Automobile Association. I hope that the Minister will find it possible on behalf of the Government to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: These amendments would introduce further restrictions on the ability of highway authorities to prevent undertakers digging up roads which have been recently resurfaced or closed for substantial road works. That represents an unwelcome and, as I shall explain, unnecessary weakening of the present clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, this goes to the heart of the public perception of the problem. There is nothing more irritating to the public than finding that a newly resurfaced road within a matter of weeks or months is being dug up again.
Amendment No. 84 would remove the requirement that the highway authority's works have to be "substantially" begun no later than one month from the starting date specified in its advance notice before a 12-month restriction can come into force. The present provision derives from Section 156 of the Highways Act 1980, which it replaces. Notices cease to be effective unless the road works are substantially begun on or within one month of the date specified in the original notice. This amendment would allow the notice period to be further drawn out if, for example, the highway authority had begun minor works in preparation for its resurfacing work which itself would not substantially begin for several weeks or months. That seems unnecessarily open-ended, and the formulation in Clause 52 represents a fair balance between the planning needs of the highway authority and the undertakers which we would not wish to alter.
Amendment No. 85 effectively provides that undertakers will be allowed to break open recently resurfaced roads or roads which have been subject to major road works in order to do works to restore or provide a new supply. A general dispensation of this

311
sort is not appropriate in a provision which seeks to strike a balance between the reasonable needs of utility customers and the need to avoid poorly planned and damaging works following substantial road works. In practice, the provision in subsection (5) should be quite sufficient, as it exempts from the 12-month restriction emergency works, other cases which may be prescribed in regulations and also works executed with the consent of the highway authority, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
We are still consulting the utilities and highway authorities on this matter. Therefore, I hope that the sort of situation outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not be a problem. However, I must add that we would prefer to leave the Bill as it stands and I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I had intended to refer to some of the remarks made by the Minister in his opening statement but his subsequent reply is far more acceptable in that joint consultations are still taking place, presumably with HAUC—or is it with the highway authorities and the joint utilities group separately?
Can the Minister give some indication that these consultations will be held and that the results will be known before we reach the next stage of the Bill? I am happy to see consultations because the whole of this Bill in regard to the utilities group and the highway authorities is a package arrangement in which the utilities and highway authorities are generally in complete agreement. They are in agreement on the two amendments I have tabled. If the Minister can give an assurance that these consultations will proceed and that we might know the results before the next stage of the Bill, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Before my noble friend replies, I emphasise that if the Bill emerges without achieving a substantial measure of co-ordination it will be heavily criticised by the general public. The public are very alive to this aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as usual makes a reasonable case. Once again it is a matter of balance, but this is a matter on which the utilities must give a little.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. As I said earlier, the sight of a newly-laid road being dug up immediately it has been laid is a cause of more irritation to the public than anything else.
I cannot give the undertaking that the result of the consultations will be available before the next stage of the Bill. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on an earlier amendment, these consultations are continuing. I shall certainly bear that point very much in mind and I hope to have something to say before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. It is possible that after consultation we may wish to bring forward amendments at the next stage of the Bill because we should not like to miss the opportunity. In the meantime, we may have
312
consultations ourselves to ascertain the various viewpoints, even if they are not joint consultations. The Minister's statement is encouraging and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 28, line 24, leave out ("made").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 87. These are drafting amendments in order to bring the last paragraph of Clause 52(6) into line with the drafting elsewhere in the Bill. The amended sentence makes reference to a "claim for payment" in place of the reference to a "claim made for payment". The same applies to the Scottish provision in Clause 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 [Restriction on works following substantial works carried out for roads purposes]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 56, line 40, leave out ("made").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 53 [General duty of street authority to co-ordinate works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 28, line 30, after ("kinds") insert ("(including works for road purposes)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 89. These are drafting amendments the purpose of which is to emphasise that the general duty of street authorities to co-ordinate works under Clause 53 includes works for road purposes. As presently drafted, the clause simply refers to works of all kinds.
It became evident during the debate on Second Reading that it would not be sufficiently clear that the duty of co-ordination extends to works carried out by the street authority as well as to undertakers' street works. I hope that this amendment will be welcomed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in particular. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I welcome Amendment No. 89 to which my noble friend also spoke.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No.
Lord Swinfen: I am sorry, I thought that was the case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 28, line 33, after ("street") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to my noble friend if I coupled Amendment No. 89 with Amendment No. 88. I should have referred to Amendment No. 94, which is the Scottish equivalent to Amendment No. 88. I have already spoken to Amendment No. 89. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I apologise to the Committee for the misunderstanding which was probably my mistake. I thank my noble friend for Amendment No. 89. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 90, but can my noble friend confirm that organisations for disabled people will be consulted when drawing up the codes of practice under this clause? If so, I shall not need to move Amendment No. 92.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We are speaking to Amendment No. 89 and perhaps we can conclude that amendment before my noble friend makes his point on Amendment No. 90.
Lord Swinfen: I said that I did not intend to move Amendment No. 90.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 28, line 38, at end insert:
("(2A) An undertaker shall co-operate with a street authority in the pursuance of the authority's duties under this section.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which speaks for itself. I should have thought that it represents the thrust behind this Bill, which is to promote maximum co-operation, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before I reply to Amendment No. 91, perhaps I may first say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that, yes, we will consult. I hope that that clarifies the point he raised.
In regard to Amendment No. 91, it is already inherent in the new procedures provided in this part of the Bill that undertakers must co-operate with street authorities to achieve the co-ordination of street works. Little would be achieved by adding a simple requirement to co-operate as the amendment proposes. The street authority will have a range of powers at its disposal to ensure that undertakers' works are properly co-ordinated. These include the advance notice arrangements, the street works' register and the street authorities' ability to direct times of working and to restrict working on recently closed or resurfaced roads. In each case the undertaker is under an obligation, the breach of which is a criminal offence.
However, we accept that the street authorities' duty of co-ordination can be discharged effectively only if the undertakers concerned co-operate by participating in liaison meetings, giving adequate advance notice of their plans and so on. The code of practice to be issued or approved under subsection (3) may be used to give practical guidance to all interested parties on how co-ordination is to work in practice. We do not believe that further statutory obligations are necessary to achieve that. I hope that that explanation gives the noble Lord a clear insight into our thinking.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Not entirely. The co-ordination function which lies behind this amendment is designed to achieve a number of very important objectives. For example, it is designed to ensure that the same street is not dug up in successive months and that work intended to take place in the same street is
314
planned sensibly and combined, where appropriate, with resurfacing of the road. The co-ordination function is designed to reduce congestion caused by street works and to ensure that the diversionary route to avoid one excavation is not blocked by another.
In tabling this amendment we were anxious to test the way in which the co-ordination function can be facilitated by imposing a very clear duty on the utilities to co-operate with the street authority in that co-ordination function. The Minister has indicated that he does not think that is necessary. I ask him to address himself in his response to these questions: does the Bill require the public utilities to use their best endeavours to ensure that the street authority can fulfil its duty? If it appears to a street authority that in the interests of co-ordination a particular authority's work should be delayed or advanced, can the Minister say what powers may be introduced to enable that objective to be fulfilled?
If there are a number of utilities having works planned in a particular street which might be programmed for resurfacing, what powers will be available to the street authority to ensure that the works are timed to coincide with the resurfacing programme? In such circumstances would the highway authority be able to ensure that the utilities reinstate to an interim level prior to resurfacing? Does the Minister believe that there is scope either for the utility or for the street authority to request, for example, resurfacing or reinstatement, to be done by the other party on a rechargeable basis? Might it not be advantageous for the highway authority to do the reinstatement, or other civil engineering work, for the utility while the authority is carrying out other works in the street? Alternatively, the highway authority may wish the utility to carry out some minor repair work adjacent to the reinstatement.
Those are questions which go to the heart of co-ordination and it is a matter which has exercised the minds of a number of noble Lords in the course of this debate. It was referred to previously by my noble friend. I ask the Minister to address specifically the points I have made. If he cannot do so immediately it may be better if we come back to them at a later stage. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend answers the specific questions, will he deal with the issue which I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has appreciated; namely, that which arises under the normal rules about the construction of statutes? This Bill is full of examples of activities which require to be co-ordinated as a result of co-operation between the various authorities. According to all the rules dealing with the construction of statutes, if in a specific case you put in a statutory obligation to co-operate the courts are apt to interpret other examples where that statutory obligation does not apply as suggesting that there is no such need to co-operate. Therefore there is a very real danger, in enacting statutory co-operation in one

315
place, that you may undermine the pressure towards co-operation elsewhere. For that reason I shall be very unhappy if this amendment is put into the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord has touched on a pertinent point. If we have omitted to include certain words by way of proviso to ensure that these provisions are not regarded as comprehensive—which is the point made by the noble Lord—but are matters, among others, that need to be contemplated, I believe that meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that completely meets the problem. It is an attempt to meet the issue. However, you still come up against the difficulty. If you provide by statute that there shall be co-operation on a particular matter between certain bodies, then, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, the courts are apt to interpret other parts of the Bill as not containing such an obligation because there is no statutory duty to comply.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I think that that objection, which is a formidable one as the amendment stands, can nonetheless be met in the way that I have suggested without causing the mischief to which the noble Lord has rightly referred. That is a matter I need to consider again when reverting to this issue at a later stage.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I refer to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about undertakers using their best endeavours. I have in my hand a copy of the draft code of practice. It is very comprehensive. If something like it is to be the final code of practice it will not leave much scope for any party involved to avoid its proper obligations. In Clause 53(4) my noble friend the Minister is going to arm himself with the necessary authority to see that co-ordination is achieved as a general duty. It seems to me that he is already fairly well equipped in this clause.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My noble friend is quite right. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that this was intended to be a probing amendment to understand better how the Bill works. The whole Bill is about co-operation and co-ordination. As I said in reply to the noble Lord's amendment, the advance notice arrangements, the street works register and the street authority's ability to direct times of working and to restrict working on recently closed or resurfaced roads are all matters which will lead to the resolution of the points the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised.
He asked me a number of more detailed questions; for example, about the interim level of reinstatement and about minor repair work to be carried out by a different utility. I shall have to look at those questions and perhaps write to the noble Lord. The whole purpose of the Bill is to achieve co-ordination and that is exactly what it does.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord for what he said. He is right. It is not impossible that certain gaps may appear in the Bill. It is to avoid that
316
situation that I have sought to probe the Government's position by tabling this amendment. I did not expect the Minister to be in a position today to reply to those specific questions but they should be on the record. The Minister indicated that he is inclined to write to me. I hope that he will do that before Report stage so that the position of the Government is clear.
We are bent on the same objective. We want to see a good, tight Bill and one in which there are no gaps. Consequently, because these are matters which the local authorities have specifically alluded to and expressed concern about, I thought it right to exercise the attention of the Committee with them this afternoon. I do not want to press the matter now. I am grateful to the noble Lord. Before withdrawing the amendment I ask that he reply to those points before we come back to the Bill at Report stage. He has indicated his assent, which is good enough for me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 29, line 2, at end insert:
("() In discharging their duties under subsection (1) (d) above, the street authority shall, particularly when coordinating the reinstatement of streets, take all reasonable steps to provide dropped curbs, appropriate tactile markings and where practicable a minimum passage width of two metres.").
The noble Lord said: Due to the agreement of the Committee to Amendment No. 89 in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon, if the Committee accepts this amendment I shall have to bring forward at a later stage an amendment to alter the wording in the first line from "subsection (1) (d)" to "subsection (1) (b)". I am happy to give that undertaking at this stage.
The amendment would produce a duty to improve provision when streets are reinstated. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to improve street access for disabled people. Dropped kerbs and tactile markings are still few and far between, leaving disabled people no option but to bump down kerbs and blind people having to guess where the end of the pavement is. When streets are being, reinstated the opportunity should be used to improve matters. Similarly, resurfacing provides an opportunity to get the cross-fall gradient right. That, I understand, is the sideways gradient on the road, what I would probably call a camber. It can be most inconvenient for wheelchair users. At the same time the opportunity could be taken to improve the road for all users, not just disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can reply only briefly to this amendment. We would prefer to deal with matters such as a minimum passage to be allowed at street works and the reinstatement of special features of the road under the relevant provisions covering safety measures in Clause 58 and the standards of reinstatement respectively in Clause 64. The requirements in question will apply to the undertaker responsible for carrying out the works rather than the

317
street authority, whose role in future will be limited to the co-ordination and inspection of works. I believe that requirements acceptable to the people concerned can be included in the appropriate regulations and codes of practice. I hope that my reply will at least partly satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Swinfen: It goes quite a long way to satisfying me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 [General duty of road works authority to co-ordinate works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 94 and 95:
Page 57, line 2, after ("kinds") insert ("(including works for road purposes)").
Page 57, line 5, after ("road") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have both been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Supplementary provisions as to designation of protected streets]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 30, line 13, leave out ("require") and insert ("direct").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 97. These are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Supplementary provisions as to designation of protected roads]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 58, line 30, leave out ("require") and insert ("direct").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [Streets with special engineering difficulties]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 98
Page 30, line 46, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 98, which is a paving amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 99. The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain the Government's thinking in relation to how features creating special engineering difficulties which are not the responsibility of either the highway authority or a transport undertaking will be dealt with.
Clause 56 is extremely important. It provides a basis for ensuring that utilities are aware of streets with special engineering difficulties—for example, bridges—and take due care when undertaking street works in them. The detailed procedures to be adopted in these cases have been discussed in some detail by the
318
Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee notices working party. The working party has identified one major area of difficulty which it has not yet been able to resolve and which is not addressed either on the face of the Bill or in Schedule 4.
The Bill and the working party have established a regime which is perfectly capable of dealing with circumstances where the special engineering difficulty arises from a structure which is the responsibility of either the highway authority or a transport authority, such as British Rail, London Underground or British Waterways Board. It is clear in these circumstances where the statutory responsibilities, liabilities and duties lie.
However, in many cases the special engineering difficulty can result from, for example, a private cellar which extends below the highway. The highway authority has no statutory responsibilities in relation to the protection or safeguarding of the cellar and it is unclear how the Government envisage the interests of both the utilities and the owner of the property with the cellar being handled in relation to this clause. That is only one example of the kind of situation that this amendment is designed to cover. I should like to hear the Government's thoughts on this matter. That is the purpose of moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This amendment would provide a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of a local highway authority for a person whose property fronts a highway and who has requested the street to be designated as having special engineering difficulties. It is not considered appropriate to introduce frontagers into this part of the Bill in this way. There may indeed be cases where by reason of cellars or other structures extending beneath a street the street authority will want to designate it as having special engineering difficulties. A responsible highway authority would of course investigate any engineering features of this kind that were brought to its attention from whatever source. It is appropriate, however, that the final decision on whether to designate the street, and so to require the submission of plans and sections by undertakers before works are executed in it, should in these cases rest with the local highway authority. I hope that I have explained the Government's position.
Lord Underhill: The Minister has explained the Government's thinking but it is still not clear in my mind whether the amendment is desirable. The position of frontagers is of some importance. I know that the highway authorities and the utilities are concerned about the matter. They have not yet been able to come to a common position. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the department has further discussions with the working party on this matter? It is important that we should reach agreement between utilities and highway authorities before we proceed further.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am happy to give that undertaking.
Lord Underhill: I am pleased to receive that undertaking, and I beg leave to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 31, line 7, leave out from ("made") to end of line 9.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102. These amendments to the procedure for the designation by street authorities of streets with special engineering difficulties are put forward in order to remove a redundant provision which could constitute a possible source of confusion. I could explain at greater length but I hope that that will be sufficient for this evening. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Streets with special engineering difficulties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 91, line 11, after ("paragraph") insert:
(—electric line" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Electricity Act 1989;").
The noble Lord said: I believe that this amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Roads with special engineering difficulties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 59, line 27, leave out from ("made") to end of line 29.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Roads with special engineering difficulties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 95, line 40, after ("paragraph") insert:
(""electric line" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Electricity Act 1989;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Traffic-sensitive streets]:
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Safety measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 31, line 35, at end insert ("having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 31, line 35, at end insert (" and

(c) that wherever possible street works positioned close to corners or junctions should be avoided, or if deemed necessary, that the repair be given priority for completion;

(d) the avoidance where possible of overbanding on corners.").

The noble Viscount said: Although this amendment concerns all kinds of wheeled traffic, it especially concerns two-wheeled vehicles which have also been provided for in other amendments. In the first part of the amendment, I seek to include in the Bill a provision covering works which are positioned close to corners or junctions which would ensure that they are either given priority for completion or that they are only carried out when necessary.
The second part of the amendment deals with the kind of repair known as overbanding which is a level of surface placed upon the road. When this work is carried out near corners, it gives rise to the possibility of skidding and loss of grip for vehicles which pass over it. Most statistics on road accidents these days show that the great majority of accidents take place—certainly in built-up areas—at roundabouts, at junctions, at traffic lights or at pedestrian crossings. Indeed, the report of the specification working party of the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee stated quite clearly that the final 50 metres approaching these junctions are considered to be sites of extremely high risk.
The positioning of holes of any kind is of particular concern to those people using two-wheeled vehicles, whether or not they are motorised. This applies especially to motorcycles and mopeds. In inner-city areas, the manhole covers are often placed very close to corners. With use they become extremely worn and shiny and can prove lethal to the rider of a two-wheeled vehicle if he approaches them at an excessive speed or if he is unaware of them. The covers are often placed in very dangerous positions from the point of view of the motorcyclist.
Another characteristic of manholes is that often when repairs are carried out the old covers are not replaced, even though they have become worn over a period of time. In other words, they are not replaced in conjunction with the surrounding repairs. This can be extremely hazardous, especially in wet weather. This is equally threatening to four-wheeled vehicles, although these days cars are much safer by virtue of new technology which is only just beginning to be incorporated on the more expensive kinds of motorcycles. I refer, for example, to anti-lock braking systems, and so on. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, no matter how good the tyres of the vehicle are, and even if such additional equipment has been fitted, you are still subject to the possibility of an accident if such covers are badly positioned. In some cases, if work has not been carried cut properly, the tarmac sinks below the level of the cover thus creating an additional hazard.
A further point I wish to make as regards repair work taking place near to corners concerns the location of rubbish skips. The positioning of some skips is badly thought through by the contractors. They are often placed on blind corners without adequate warning being given to oncoming traffic.
Banding is also a repair which is lethal for motorcyclists and pedal cyclists. The surface of the repair spreads and the traffic polishes it with use. It can become extremely slippery and take on all the characteristics associated with icy conditions. For those reasons, it would be desirable to have a provision in the Bill to cover such repair works. I hope that I have been able to describe the hazards which arise, especially in connection with two-wheeled vehicles. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the Minister replies, I must say that the noble Viscount has done the Committee a great service by referring to these extremely important matters. Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that in this particular instance such details ought to be made the subject of guidance or regulation rather than being incorporated in the Bill. However, I suspect that the amendment was tabled in order to probe the Government's intentions in this regard.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is quite correct in his thinking and I shall attempt to explain why in my reply. I very much agree with the noble Viscount that street works which take place near road junctions, especially on heavily trafficked roads, can be particularly disruptive. Guidance on the safety measures to be adopted at such sites will be included in the code of practice to be issued under subsection (3) of this clause. The new version of Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual, on which it is intended to base the code of practice, will include special advice on traffic control measures required for road works at junctions. This general advice to undertakers can be supplemented by directions from the traffic authority on traffic management measures to be adopted at particular sites.
The local highway authority will have power under Clause 57 to designate a street or part of a street as traffic-sensitive so that special requirements as to the advance notice of undertakers' works will apply to it. They are also to have power under Clause 50 to give directions to undertakers as to the time when works may or may not be carried out if to do so would avoid or reduce serious disruption to traffic. It would be open to a highway authority to use those powers in cases where undertakers' works take place close to junctions on certain roads. I hope that that helps the noble Viscount with the first part of his amendment.
I turn now to overbanding. So far as overbanding is concerned, detailed practical guidance on the required standards of reinstatement by undertakers is to be prescribed by the Secretary of State under Clause 64. We recognise that the practice of applying wide bands of sealing compound to repair cracks or joints in the road can pose hazards to road users, especially
322
motorcyclists, because of the material's low skidding resistance in the wet. The requirements to be prescribed under Clause 64 will cover permissible methods of edge and crack sealing and impose standards on the skidding resistance to be achieved with different street works.
Skips are not relevant to this part of the Bill. I hope that the noble Viscount will welcome a new clause regarding skips that I shall be moving towards the end of the Bill. Skips should not be placed close to road corners. I was under the impression—I shall have to confirm this to the noble Viscount—that that was an offence, but I shall have to look into that point.
In view of all the proposed safeguards, I hope that the noble Viscount will agree that it is not necessary to specify on the face of the Bill provisions in respect of street works close to corners or junctions, or the other points raised in the amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Many of those concerned will draw comfort from what he says and look forward to seeing how the Government's approach will affect the future position. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his intervention.
I agree with what the Minister said about banding. It can be a perilous repair. It is a question of the width, which I do not believe I mentioned in my opening remarks. A satisfactory and acceptable width is laid down, but the repairs sometimes extend beyond that width. I take it from the Minister's remarks that that point will be examined carefully. I thank the Minister for his remarks, which we shall obviously examine carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 32, line 2, at end insert:
("(c) shall consult persons representative of blind and disabled people when drawing up that code of practice.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Will my noble friend confirm that organisations representing disabled people will be consulted when the code of practice is drawn up under the clause? I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes. I readily give my noble friend the assurance that groups representing blind and disabled people will be consulted further before any code of practice is issued or approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of the clause.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 112 [Safety measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 60, line 18, at end insert:
("and in accordance with section 120 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (duty to have regard to the needs of people with a disability).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Avoidance of unnecessary delay or obstruction]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 32, line 29, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment, as is Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not sure that this is entirely a drafting amendment, although it is a simple amendment. I wonder what the word "reasonable" in this context involves. Why did not the Minister put the word down in the first place? He appeared to be satisfied with the drafting of the Bill, the wording being:
"take such steps as are specified in the notice".
It is inconceivable that the steps taken would be unreasonable. I do not know what the Minister has in mind. It would be helpful if he could illustrate what he means and why the introduction of the word "reasonable" in this context is appropriate. He may well be right and convince me of it. I had thought that the provision did not require qualification in that way; nonetheless, if the Minister has positive reasons for including it I shall listen with interest. It is unlikely that I shall divide the Committee, especially as the television cameras are masked. I cannot understand why that should be the position. I should have thought that this was an exhilarating debate upon which the public would have been concentrating with undue attention.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord makes a good point. I am surprised that there is not more public interest in the debate, especially on this amendment, which is of course of earth shattering importance. As I said, it is a drafting amendment which makes it clear that, where a street authority requires an undertaker to lessen the extent of or remove an obstruction caused by street works, any steps which the authority requires the undertaker to take in respect of a notice given under Clause 59(3) must be reasonable. The amendment is for the avoidance of doubt. It gives utilities the assurance that highway authorities can require only reasonable steps to be taken. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is a reasonable amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am always reasonable, as the Minister is aware. If I were not so reasonable I should be asking him to cite illustrations of what is reasonable, what may be reasonable and what may be unreasonable. I am not convinced that the amendment is required. However, the Committee will be relieved to know, as I have indicated, that I do not propose to divide the Committee. I agree that the amendment is earth shattering.
Lord Tordoff: At the end of that interesting dialogue, I wonder whether it is necessary to put a definition of "earth shattering" into the Bill. Does it come within the terms of breaking into the highway?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Avoidance of unnecessary delay or obstruction]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 61, line 13, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Qualifications of supervisors and operatives]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I should point out that if Amendment No. 113 is agreed to it pre-empts Amendment No. 114.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 32, line 34, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
("(1) It is the duty of an undertaker executing street works involving—

(a) breaking up the street, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or

(b) tunnelling or boring under the street,

to secure that, except in such cases as may be prescribed, the execution of the works is supervised by a person having a prescribed qualification as a supervisor.
(2) It is the duty of an undertaker executing street works involving—

(a) breaking up or opening the street, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or

(b) tunnelling or boring under the street,

to secure that, except in such cases as may he prescribed, there is on site at all times when any such works are in progress at least one person having a prescribed qualification as a trained operative.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115, 117 and 118.
The amendment has two purposes. First, it reorders the wording of Clause 60 such that the requirement on an undertaker to have certain street works supervised by a qualified supervisor is contained in a separate subsection to the requirement to have a qualified operative on site at all times when certain street works are being carried out. That will allow the requirements to be brought into effect more easily at different times. The Horne Report recommended that the requirement to have qualified supervisors should come into effect first.
Secondly, the amendment exempts some minor works which involve opening the street only from the requirement in respect of supervision. That is achieved by referring in subsection (1) only to "breaking up" and not "breaking up or opening" the street. As presently drafted, Clause 60 requires that an undertaker ensures that all street works involving the breaking up or opening of the street are carried out with at least one trained operative present at all times and supervised by a qualified supervisor. It is considered that the latter requirement is unnecessary for works of that nature which may well be limited to the opening of a manhole cover. That will of course in no way affect an undertaker's duties under this part of

325
the Bill to which we have already referred in a previous amendment. A trained operative is still required in all such cases.
The second amendment to this clause is a minor drafting amendment which is necessary as a consequence of the first. It relates the offence provision contained in Clause 60(3) —qualifications of supervisors and operatives—to the undertakers' duties under the new subsections (1) and (2) of that clause. The other two amendments do exactly the same for Scotland. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I believe that I have the key to our little debate a few moments ago which concerned boring under the streets. I believe that it was boring in this street that caused the television cameras to be masked.
I thank the noble Lord for his comments on Amendment No. 113 and the others that we are considering. I wish to take the opportunity to reflect on why we sought to put down Amendments Nos. 114 and 116. It was to probe the intentions underlying the drafting of Clause 60, which we are considering in the context of this amendment. Clause 60 is a key element in the Horne package: the requirement that each utility work should be supervised by a qualified person; that there should be a qualified operative on the site at all times. As I understand it, the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee working party is developing proposals to implement those requirements.
The first amendment was designed to probe the cases in which the Government envisaged that the requirements in relation to the qualified supervisor and operative would not apply. I therefore ask the Minister, when he responds to the debate, to answer this specific question: what circumstances do the Government envisage might be prescribed under the provisions of the final line of Clause 60(1)?
The second amendment involves a rather more important point. When the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee working party began its work it adhered strictly to the recommendation made by Horne to the effect that there should be a prescribed accreditation and training package. It rapidly became apparent to the working party that its proposals would have to be acceptable to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. One of its requirements is that all assessments should be open to anyone, whether or not they should have followed an approved training course. In consequence, the working party has concentrated on developing assessment procedures and measures of competence rather than detailed training packages.
However, the Bill reverts to the Horne formula and imposes training requirements. That is why it is important that we should clarify the position at this stage. Is it the Government's intention that the proposed regulations will specify both the assessment of the competence of operatives and supervisors and the training necessary to develop those competences?
326
If that is the case, how can this approach be reconciled with the policy of the NCVQ—that is to say, that it is invalid to require that a person presenting himself or herself for assessment should have undertaken a particular form of training?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that I can deal with those two points to the noble Lord's satisfaction. The government amendment to this clause which I have just moved will change the order of requirements at present in subsection (1), but the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe exceptions in regulations is to be preserved. That is considered necessary to allow arrangements to be made by regulations, so, for example, it may not necessarily be a statutory requirement to have the most minor utility street works supervised by a qualified supervisor. I gave an example when I spoke on the government amendment.
There is no intention to use this power to derogate from the basic requirements that undertakers' works should in future be supervised by a properly qualified supervisor and that at least one qualified operative should be on site while works are being carried out. The Government have accepted these recommendations from the Horne Report, which will come into full effect after a suitable transitional period to allow qualifications to be conferred on the tens of thousands of people involved in street works.
Turning to those qualifications, similarly, the provision to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the training to be undergone before a qualification is conferred is designed to allow practicable arrangements to be made. It envisaged that each individual would be assessed before gaining a qualification and that experience and past training would be taken into account. Further formal training will only be required as appropriate in individual cases. The advice of representatives of the highway authorities nationally will be taken before any requirements are prescribed. I hope that that explanation answers the points the noble Lord raised.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister has given a reasonably satisfactory explanation which covered the ground of the first amendment. I am not totally convinced that he has covered the points I raised in relation to the others. However, I shall read carefully what he said. I certainly do not wish to press to a Division any objections to the amendment moved by the Minister. Perhaps we will come back to the matter at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 33, line 2, leave out ("(1) (a) or (b)") and insert ("(1) or (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114 [Qualifications of supervisors and operatives]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 61, line 18, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
("(1) It is the duty of an undertaker executing road works involving—

(a) breaking up the road, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or

(b) tunnelling or boring under the road,

to secure that, except in such cases as may be prescribed, the execution of the works is supervised by a person having a prescribed qualification as a supervisor.
(2) It is the duty of an undertaker executing road works involving—

(a) breaking up or opening the road, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or

(b) tunnelling or boring under the road,

to secure that, except in such cases as may be prescribed, there is on site at all times when any such works are in progress at least one person having a prescribed qualification as a trained operative.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 61, line 31, leave out ("(1) (a) or (b)") and insert ("(1) or (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Works likely to affect other apparatus in the street]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 33, line 18, leave out ("supervising") and insert ("monitoring").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 119 and with the leave of the Committee I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 122. These amendments clarify the role of a person whose apparatus is likely to be affected by street works as that of monitoring rather than supervising the execution of the works, as the Bill is now drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 33, line 19, leave out ("requirements made by him which are") and insert ("requirement made by him which is").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 120 and at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 123. These are drafting amendments which bring the wording into line with that in Clause 62(1) (b) (ii), where the reference is to a requirement, in the singular. The second amendment applies to Scotland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 33, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the failure was attributable—

328

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 121, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 124. This amendment is similar in its effect to the amendments to the defence provision in Clauses 49 and 51. It replaces the provision giving an undertaker a possible defence for failure to comply with the requirements in subsection (1) of this clause where his works are likely to affect another person's apparatus. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 116 [Works likely to affect other apparatus in the road]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 122 to 124:
Page 62, line 4, leave out ("supervising") and insert ("monitoring").
Page 62, line 5, leave out ("requirements made by him which are") and insert ("requirement made by him which is").
Page 62, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the failure was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Duty of undertaker to reinstate]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 34, line 1, leave out from ("shall") to ("inform") and insert ("before the end of the next working day after the day on which the reinstatement is completed").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 125, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 126, 129 and 130. These amendments bring into line with other provisions in this part of the Bill the requirement to inform the street authority that a reinstatement has been completed. As presently drafted, Clause 63(3) places a duty on undertakers to do so within 24 hours of completing the reinstatement. In practice this could mean that the undertaker might have to inform the street authority on a Sunday or even on Christmas Day. Amendment No. 125 would require the undertaker to do so on the next working day, which better reflects the operational realities. Amendment No. 126 is a drafting amendment which is necessary as a consequence of Amendment No. 125. It makes clear that there is a duty on an undertaker to notify the street authority within the specified period that he has completed the reinstatement of the street. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 34, line 2, leave out ("done so") and insert ("has completed the reinstatement of the street").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 34, line 7, leave out ("initial") and insert ("interim").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 127 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 131. This is a drafting amendment which corrects an inconsistent reference to an initial reinstatement in Clause 63(4). The amendment replaces this with a reference to interim reinstatement. That is the term used elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [Duty of undertaker to reinstate]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 62, line 28, leave out from ("practicable") to end of line 30.
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that it would be for the undertaker to prove that his failure to carry out the works timeously was because to do so would have hindered other works. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I must say that it is nice to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, again. Having made his pilgrimage to the Chamber, maybe the noble Lord can explain—perhaps it is for his noble friend Lord Brabazon to explain this matter—why these amendments are included in, as it were, the Scottish version of the Bill when there is no comparable amendment in the English part of the Bill. I am trying to understand why there appears to be this disparity. There may be some reason for it in Scottish law. However, I know nothing about Scottish law.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord for welcoming me back to the Dispatch Box.
I shall explain the position more fully. The amendment is designed to make it clear that in a prosecution the defender will need to prove that his failure to begin the works timeously was because to do so would hinder the execution of other parts of the works or other works to be carried out immediately or shortly thereafter.
The former wording would have required the prosecutor to prove that the carrying out of the works timeously would not have hindered other works. So far as it goes, that is quite plain. However, the reason why the measure comes into the Scottish part of the Bill is that things are different in Scotland. Under the provisions of the Bill, we have consulted thoroughly with Scottish local authorities and we have come up with a variety of schemes which are unique to Scotland, partly because there is a different situation in Scotland. There are only nine regional authorities in Scotland, whereas in England the situation is entirely
330
different. That is why we have proposed these amendments. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord's curiosity.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With the greatest respect, I must say that that does not satisfy me at all. The noble Lord has come from far away parts and he has told us that the situation in Scotland is different. He is quite right about that. There are only 10 Conservative Members of Parliament in Scotland, for instance, and there are likely to be fewer at the next election. Things may be different in Scotland but it would seem that these provisions could reasonably apply to the English part of the Bill. I am not disputing in any way what was said by the noble Lord. He said that it was important to have this measure in relation to Scottish law. However, I cannot see why it is not also important to have it in relation to English law. That is the essence of the matter. If the Ministers cannot reply to me today—I may have taken them by surprise and I apologise for that—I hope they will provide an explanation at some stage as I believe they owe it to the Committee.
Lord Strathclyde: I was not at all taken by surprise. As I have said, things are different in Scotland. If the noble Lord wishes to propose an amendment at a later stage to include this measure in the English provisions, he is entitled to do so. If he did so, he might receive a fuller explanation as to why such a measure would not be acceptable in England.
Lord Tordoff: The fact that things are different in Scotland is not a reason for establishing a totally different situation there in this case. The existence of regional councils in Scotland does not seem to bear on this matter at all, unless the Minister is saying that these matters should be dealt with in Scotland. If that is the case, I am sure that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place will be only too pleased to direct the Minister to the Scottish Convention where I am sure they will be delighted to deal with these matters and relieve this Chamber of many of its duties in relation to Scotland. If this is a good amendment in principle, I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, does not treat us to a similar amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not agree with the noble Lord's remarks on the Scottish Convention, but that is an entirely different argument which we can perhaps discuss on another day. However, in the event of a certain amount of support for these provisions in England, we would consider their applicability to England and Wales.
Lord Clinton-Davis: On the face of it, there appears to be the most dramatic lack of co-ordination—we are told that the Bill is all about co-ordination—between the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office. We have not been told today why this disparity exists. With respect, I must say that I should have thought it was for the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, to explain the position rather than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was kind enough to introduce this invaluable amendment. As I have said, if the Government are not in a position to respond today, perhaps they will give us the clearest possible undertaking—the Minister

331
has, I believe, moved in that direction—that they will consider this matter with a view to introducing a similar amendment on Report.
Lord Tordoff: Can we take it that this is an example of the progress that we are to make in relationships between England, Wales and Scotland now that the former Secretary of State has been moved from the Scottish Office to transport? Not everyone would consider that move a promotion. I should not have thought the Scots would consider it a promotion, either. However, that is by the way.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is quite wrong. Almost 25 per cent. of the Cabinet is now essentially Scottish. We in Scotland regard that as a fantastic achievement. I have said that we shall consider the applicability of this amendment to England and Wales. That is as far as I can go at this stage. There is no commitment to bring forward amendments. I hope that will satisfy Members of the Committee opposite.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 129 and 130:
Page 62, line 31, leave out from ("shall") to ("inform") and insert ("before the end of the next working day after the day on which the reinstatement is completed").
Page 62, line 32, leave out ("done so") and insert ("has completed the reinstatement of the road").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 131 and 132:
Page 62, line 37, leave out ("initial") and insert ("interim"). Page 62, line 41, at end insert:
("(6) It shall be a defence to a charge of failing to comply with the duty under subsection (2) that reinstatement of the road following completion of part of the road works was delayed in order to avoid hindering the execution of other parts of those works or of other works to be undertaken immediately or shortly thereafter.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 [Materials, workmanship and standard of reinstatement]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 34, line 15, at end insert ("to ensure adequate road safety.").
The noble Viscount said: With the words "to ensure adequate road safety" the amendment seeks to emphasise the importance of prescribing the proper materials and standard of workmanship in repairs reinstating the surface of a road. The HAUC report, to which I referred earlier, recommended that the profile of the repair should be substantially at the same level as or flush with adjacent surfaces along the edges of the repair reinstating the road or highway and there should be no significant depression below the level of adjacent surfaces. It would seem to be obvious that that would be a necessary part of the duties of the contractor undertaking such repairs.
However, those who drive regularly in London cannot fail to have noticed that in a very short interval after repairs have been completed holes in the road
332
become bigger than the original holes which were repaired. A researcher in my office has had the wheels of two pedal cycles completely ruined by large holes in the road which had been repaired. It is common in London and probably in other cities around the country to find holes of a depth of six inches or more. That shows that at present either the materials or the workmanship, or both, are not satisfactory. The amendment seeks to add strength to the Bill to ensure that adequate road safety is paramount in all repairs. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In prescribing the requirements under Clause 64 for materials, workmanship and the standards of reinstatement to be observed by undertakers, the Secretary of State will have the safety of road users as his key objective. Other considerations will include the protection of buried apparatus, the integrity of the road pavement and the durability of the reinstatement. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to limit the objectives to which the prescribed standards are directed to the single question of road safety.
Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Viscount that the safety of all road users will be a guiding principle when we come to prescribe the detailed requirements on undertakers in regulations and codes of practice.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Lord for his assurances, which will be of comfort to road users. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 34, line 24, at end insert:
("() He shall ensure that when reinstatement take place, this includes any reinstatement of any existing measures for disabled persons and reasonable steps are taken to ensure the safe and convenient passage of blind and disabled persons.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to ensure that reinstatement of the street includes reinstatement of any existing special provisions for people with disabilities. As the Committee will realise, it is important to ensure that street works do not result in a deterioration in access to the street. The amendment simply states that where special provisions, such as dropped kerbs or textured pavements, have been provided the reinstatement should include reinstatement of those facilities, which are very important to the mobility of disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to endorse what has been said about the amendment. It is an important matter. I should also like to take the opportunity to give an illustration from our own parish, of which I am sure the Minister will be aware.
As noble Lords may recall, there was a stretch of textured pavement at the zebra crossing near to St. Stephen's Entrance to the Palace of Westminster. That crossing has recently been removed and is to be replaced with a pelican crossing. About 10 days ago I received a telephone call from a friend of mine who is a member of my party's disability working group. She is blind and is often to be seen around the Palace of

333
Westminster with her guide dog. In some alarm she informed me that the textured pavement at the crossing had been removed.
I took the trouble to go outside and speak to the people who were removing the pavement to try to ascertain whether it would be replaced in the new location. They did not know, so I got in touch with Westminster City Council and was told that the staff there did not know anything about the matter either. I then spoke to the noble Lord's department. His staff were most helpful. They understood the problem, particularly in view of the fact that that particular textured pavement had been laid at the expense of the Department of Transport in 1983. It was specifically designed as an example of what could be done with textured pavement so that Members of this Chamber and of another place could see it in operation. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, textured payment provides a means for blind people to establish where they are on the pavement and when they have come to a crossing and it is safe to cross the road.
When I received a copy of a letter—I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for sending me the correspondence—I was doubly disturbed to find that the Department of Transport Disability Unit (for which I have nothing but the highest praise for its work on behalf of the disabled in relation to transport) had been told by Westminster City Council that the council had no intention of having tactile paving in Westminster in the future. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is not in her place. I hope that we can draw her attention to this short debate because I am sure that she would support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
I hope that Westminster City Council will reconsider the position. If that was the leading stretch of tactile paving in the country it is very sad that it should be lost to blind people when street works take place. It is particularly dangerous for people who have been used to using the crossing to find that it has been removed.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done so far. I hope that his disability unit will be able to make progress with Westminster City Council. If it is not, I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber will protest to Westminster City Council. I hope that in the light of that example the Committee will understand how important it is that an amendment such as this should be included on the face of the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in those extremely important observations. I am informed that the daughter of my noble friend Lord Carter, who is blind, has drawn his attention to the issue. Moreover, apparently the crossing is very much steeper than it was previously, affecting wheelchair users. Those are serious matters arising very close to this Chamber. We have a clear vested interest in ensuring that people who are disabled and blind are given reasonable access to this building. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that
334
the matters are pursued further, particularly with the Westminster City Council, which has the essential duty here.
What both noble Lords have said in their contributions to the debate is extremely pertinent. If we cannot ensure that matters so close to this building are put right what on earth can we do about other matters? People who have specific disabilities have made representations to us. The Minister has now heard about this and I hope that he will respond positively as to the action that he will take to remedy the defects.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am aware of the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred because, as he knows, I have written to him about it and promised to keep in touch and tell him how things go. That is all I can say on that particular issue at the moment.
I turn to the amendment. As has been stated, special features including dropped kerbs, tactile surfaces and markings are now, I am glad to say, becoming more commonly provided by highway authorities in their streets, although we should still like to see further progress in that direction.
It is clearly important that those should be properly restored by undertakers who break up the street, particularly where the features have been provided for the assistance of blind and disabled people. I can assure the Committee that, where undertakers break up a special surface, they will be required to put it back. This matter will be covered in the codes of practice to be issued or approved by the Secretary of State, giving practical guidance on the materials, workmanship and standards of reinstatement to be observed under this provision. Therefore it does not seem to be appropriate to provide for that on the face of the Bill.
I can assure my noble friend also that groups representing blind and disabled people will be consulted before any regulation or codes of practice on standards of reinstatement are prescribed by the Secretary of State. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord speaks, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether at the moment there are any codes of practice in existence which would deal with the situation, or whether this is a totally new area in which codes of practice would be introduced. If there are codes of practice in existence, they are being infringed by the very example that I gave.
Lord Brabazon of TaraI am not entirely sure whether there are at the moment. I shall have to check up on that point and write to the noble Lord. It seems to me from the correspondence that we have had so far that there may not be.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the noble Earl be kind enough to ensure that all those who have participated in this debate receive copies of his letter?
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord will understand why I made that point. If codes of practice are in existence and have been seen to fail, we should wish, as I am

335
sure would the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to press the Minister at a later stage to put this on the face of the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for a very positive response to the amendment. I shall withdraw it but I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has just said and, if there is not adequate provision at the moment, I may have to come back to the matter later. I did not know of the serious omissions of the City of Westminster, one of the places most visited by tourists from all over the world and indeed from within this country. Quite obviously it is visited by those who are responsible for making certain that adequate provisions are made in their own parts of the country. Whether the Westminster authorities like it or not, they are in a position in which they should set not only a good but an excellent example to all other local authorities throughout the country and to those from other countries so that they can learn what to do there. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. At the same time, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee resumes its deliberations at 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1990
7.4 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 6 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 provided that the Act would expire on 31st March 1990 unless continued in force for a further year by order laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House. Last year Parliament approved such an order. This extended the life of the Act until 31st March 1991. The order now before the House, which is also made under Section 6 of the Act, provides for the Act to continue in force for a further year, until 31st March 1992. This is necesary to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in due course to give effect to the teachers' pay settlement for 1991–92, following the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions and consultation on its recommendations.
Because of the consultations which have to be undertaken after the committee reports, the order to give effect to the Government's decisions on its recommendations cannot be made before May at the earliest. So if the life of the Act is not extended in the way proposed it will not be possible to deal with the 1991–92 pay settlement.
I should explain the background to this order. On 12th December last year my noble friend Lord Davidson, in moving the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1989, explained that an extension by one year of the arrangements whereby teachers' pay and conditions were determined by the Secretary of State on the advice of the interim advisory committee was necessary because of the continuing and fundamental differences of views between the relevant parties as to the nature of the permanent arrangements that should be put in place. But he also reported on the discussions which were taking place on the basis of three new options outlined by the then Secretary of State. He confirmed that it was the Government's aim to bring forward legislation to establish new permanent machinery in the next Session of Parliament.
That is precisely what the Government have done. The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill received its Second Reading in another place on 27th November. Your Lordships will have a full opportunity to discuss the provisions of the Bill in due course. When my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State announced the Government's proposals for new machinery on 26th April this year, he invited the local authority employers and the teacher unions to comment on how best to handle the 1991–92 pay settlement. He noted that the three broad options appeared to be: to deal with the settlement in the new machinery, retrospectively if necessary, once it had been put in place; to run the new machinery on a voluntary, shadow basis in anticipation of the passage of legislation; or to ask the interim advisory committee once more to make recommendations.
A number of different responses were received. There was no support for the option of dealing with the settlement retrospectively once the new arrangements were in place. But nor was there sufficient agreement about the desirability of running the new machinery on a shadow basis. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State therefore announced on 23rd July that he would seek the approval of Parliament to extend the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act for a further and final year, and to invite the IAC to make recommendations for a settlement to cover the year April 1991 to March 1992. The decision has been welcomed by many of the parties concerned.
The committee has been asked to report by 18th January. It is now well into its stride. In previous reports it has recommended far-reaching improvements to the teachers' pay structure. The committee has this year been asked, in particular, to consider what further modifications should be made to the system of selective payments to increase flexibility and to improve recruitment and retention.
This time next year the employers and the teacher unions should be hard at work negotiating the 1992–93 pay settlement. The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 will have been repealed. In the meantime, however, we need this order to extend the life of the

337
Act beyond 31st March 1991 so as to pay teachers an increase next year. I commend it to the House and ask that the order be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his very full and clear statement, which I found interesting, particularly in the sense that he clarified the problem that confronts us in what we hope is the last year for having a Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act continuation order. I shall not delay your Lordships by dwelling on the unhappiness that we have experienced for several years during which teachers have not been free to negotiate in the normal way. We have not been happy about their loss of negotiating rights. Indeed, we have always been concerned about the legality of that situation within the European framework.
I am willing to let bygones be bygones. This is the last year of the order. We look forward to the new Bill. I am willing to draw a line under the past. We shall approach the new Bill in a proper spirit of reform, hoping that it will provide a proper negotiating procedure.
I cannot refrain from pointing out that one idea that has been put forward as much by members of the political party opposite as by members on this side, is that, as we come to reform or abolish the poll tax, that situation might be dealt with by changing the system of meeting the costs of education, not least of which would be teachers' pay. There will be much to consider in the coming year. I look forward to what we may do in the future rather than repeating the criticisms of the past.
There is a final matter that we should reflect upon. We all accept that teachers are central if any of the education reforms that we have in mind are to succeed. There is not a lot that governments or opposition spokesmen can do in education: what teachers do, because they are not very different from the rest of us as ordinary people, to some extent depends upon how well they are paid in real terms. Therefore, I am bound to ask whether there is anything that the noble Lord can say at this stage about the likely path of real wages for teachers.
There is a related matter which is not unconnected with local government finance. Whatever award is made—and I hope that it will be a generous award—to encourage teachers to respond as positively as they can to the extra demands made upon them, one has to ask who will meet that cost. Is it to be expected that central Government will find a way of meeting more of the cost and taking some of the burden away from local authorities?
The past four years have been a most unhappy time as regards the approach to teachers' pay. I look forward to a new spirit in approaching the matter. We shall do the best we can by looking at the Bill and hoping to amend it in a way that will be satisfactory to all concerned.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the clear way in which he presented the reasons for the order. The Act which the order seeks to extend was due to last for three years at the most and in fact has lasted for five years. A temporary arrangement which lasts for that long seems to be a permanent definition of temporary. However, there is now light at the end of the tunnel since the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill is now in progress through Parliament, with the prospect of proper new arrangements for teachers in 1992. I join the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in the spirit of the hope that springs eternal. We on these Benches shall not oppose the order.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, quite obviously we must approve the draft order. However, we should never have been required to deal with an order of this kind at this time. In 1987 some noble Lords wanted to shorten the limit of time allowed to replace the ad hoc arrangements by more normal and satisfactory machinery. We thought that two years was long enough, but it seems that it was not.
When we come to consider the new Bill we can reasonably ask what everybody has been doing in the past three years to produce a scheme of more normal relationships in discussing pay and conditions.
I too should like to look forward. I have a good deal of past to look at as well. It is 16 years since I urged the teachers and the Government to get their act in order. There is an unhappy relationship and rivalry between the teacher organisations. They are divided by their history in some cases. Their trade union structure is an inheritance. Names have been changed but fundamental differences remain. It is a great pity. The other side of the problem is that there are always two employers. How does one get normal machinery—for example, on the model of the civil service —when there is a disconnected assortment of staff unions and twin monsters as employers? During one of the past disputes, one employer criticised the other employer and sided with the staff against the government, which held a different view.
What worries me is that there is no sign that the deep difficulties in regard to the machinery will be overcome. What is contained in the draft order is virtually to be written into the Bill in the event of failure of the new negotiation machinery to reach agreement. All those matters will have to be discussed when we see the Bill. It has started its progress in a standing committee in the House of Commons and we shall have to see what its final shape will be. We may still have many difficulties to face. I should like to see some signs of this new spirit, which I believe may be coming. It will greatly help the situation.
I firmly believe that the funding of our education service will have to be reviewed in connection with any other far-reaching investigation into the structure and funding of local authorities. The cost of education is the largest single item in the poll tax and it is likely to grow. Where is all the money to come to give teachers the new status to which the Prime Minister referred?

339
I realise that some of those issues are beyond the scope of the present debate, but this is a curtain-raiser to what is to follow. I hope that the Government and the unions will attach considerable importance to the proceedings on the Bill. I do not think that it would be fair for both sides to come back to Parliament to consider changes in the method of dealing with staff pay and conditions if the same old structure that led to the breakdown during the Burnham Committee's tenure of office remained in existence. It is a sad story. To one who was present at the beginnings of the Whitley Council system in the civil service from 1919 onwards seeing the contrast between what was done in the civil service for a much larger and a much more varied workforce than the teachers, emphasises how deplorable has been the set-up in the teaching profession. The fundamental defects exist now. I can only hope that we shall see some hope in the new Bill.
I have strayed beyond the bounds of the order but I cannot keep out of a debate on teachers' pay, however short it may be, nor can I get rid of the disappointments which have clouded my outlook in relation to the field of education over the past 16 years.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, this has been a brief debate and perhaps it is the better for that. I should like to thank the noble Lords who have taken part, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for refraining from getting involved in the Bill. It is helpful at this stage not to discuss the Bill which will shortly be before us.
I have noted the various comments made by your Lordships and I shall draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, this is the last occasion on which the Government will be asking the House to approve an extension of the 1987 Act. Legislation now being considered in another place will replace the interim advisory committee with new permanent machinery for negotiating teachers' pay and conditions. I believe that the proposals mark a significant step forward in restoring teachers' status and morale. I hope that they will be welcomed by the House when we have an opportunity to debate them in due course.
We should not forget, and I acknowledge, the admirable job which the IAC has done since 1987. It has produced three excellent reports which the Government have warmly welcomed and implemented in full. I have no doubt that the report which is due to be presented to my right honourable friend next month will be of an equally high standard.
It is a fundamental belief of the Government that flexible pay systems which allow the targeting of resources where they are most needed are the most effective way of tackling any local recruitment and retention difficulties. The teachers' pay structure should also be flexible enough to enable LEAs and governing bodies to reward good teachers and those who take on additional responsibilities. That is why the Government put in place the incentive allowance system in 1987 and that is why we have welcomed
340
successive reports from the IAC which have built on that base and further extended local flexibility each year.
I turn to the points raised by your Lordships. All noble Lords talked of the damaging effect of the delay in bringing forward legislation. In the spirit that has dominated this short debate I do not attribute blame. However, I tried to touch on the reasons for the failure to achieve a consensus which contributed to the delay.
It is said widely that teachers' pay has fallen behind during the lifetime of this Government and there is talk of differentials. However, the fact remains that since 1979 teachers' pay has risen on average by some 30 per cent. in real terms. It is considerably higher in real terms than it was immediately following the 1974 review presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. In cash terms, since 1986 it has risen by more than 50 per cent.
We look forward to the legislation arriving in this House. In the meantime, the order is needed to ensure that teachers receive a pay rise next year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.22 to 8 p.m.]

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 65 [Powers of street authority in relation to reinstatement]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 35, line 18, leave out ("is causing") and insert ("may cause").
The noble Lord said: Clause 65 deals with powers of street authorities with regard to reinstatement. Subsection (4) as drafted will allow only a highway authority to reinstate on its own initiative where an actual danger exists. The amendment seeks to extend the provisions to potential dangers. If accepted, the amendment would mean that a highway inspector could deal with a piece of shoddy work without the necessity of waiting for a disaster or being able to prove that there is a danger. That is of great importance as the Bill does not define a danger for the purpose of decision-making without resort to legal interpretation and its attendant delays.
I know that there is a difference of opinion on this matter but we are trying to avoid the necessity of waiting for an accident which may have serious consequences. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Clause 64 of the Bill places the primary responsibility on the undertakers to ensure that their reinstatements continuously meet the prescribed performance standard. It is important that the highway authority's general responsibilities for maintaining its roads should not detract from that. The procedure for remedying defective reinstatements

341
under this clause gives street authorities a role in influencing the extent and timing of necessary works but places the financial and physical responsibility for putting the defects right on the undertaker concerned. In cases where a reinstatement is actually causing danger to road users, the street authority may clearly need to act immediately, and the provision as drafted allows for that.
A street authority must make a judgment as to whether a reinstatement is dangerous or not before acting in that way. To widen the condition to circumstances in which a reinstatement simply may cause danger to users of the street at some time would allow too wide a discretion to the street authority. I submit that that would lead to some of the legal complications which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, outlined when moving the amendment. The amendment is not considered necessary to allow satisfactory arrangements to operate in practice to protect road users from danger caused by undertakers' reinstatements. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I thank the Minister for his comments to explain why he cannot accept the amendment. I was pleased to note that he said that there are provisions whereby immediate action could be taken, because that was the purpose of the amendment. I shall look very carefully at what the Minister said and at the provisions to which he referred because one needs immediate action and not a few days' notice in order to deal with the matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 119 [Powers of road works authority in relation to reinstatement]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 63, line 30, leave out ("street") and insert ("road works").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment to correct an incorrect reference to the street authority. The reference should be to the road works authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Reinstatement affected by subsequent works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 35, line 43, after second ("the") insert ("subsequent").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 138, 139 and 140. These are drafting amendments which clarify the provisions of Clause 66(4) concerning an undertaker's responsibility for a reinstatement which is affected by remedial works carried out by the street authority. The amendments provide that the reinstatement carried out by the authority is referred to in subsection
342
(4) as the subsequent reinstatement, as in subsection (2). The amendments to Clause 120 do that for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 35, line 45, at end insert ("subsequent").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 120 [Reinstatement affected by subsequent works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 64, line 27, after second ("the") insert ("subsequent").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 64, line 29, at end insert ("subsequent").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 [Fee for occupation of the highway]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 36, line 45, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3), (4) or (5) or the works take longer or are more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 142. The amendment makes important further provision concerning the Secretary of State's powers to require highway authorities to introduce a scheme for the charging of the occupation of road space by undertakers and brings the clause into line with the department's original intentions.
As presently drafted, it might have the unfortunate effect of encouraging undertakers to underestimate the length and extent of their works, while at the same time failing to provide an incentive to complete works ahead of schedule.
The amendment therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for repayments of fees, and also for requiring undertakers to pay additional fees when works overrun or are more extensive than was originally estimated. The power also extends to laying down how the amount of any repayment or additional fee is to be calculated. The amendment to Clause 121 does that for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 67, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: Members of the Committee will remember that this was a subject on which we dwelt on Second Reading. At that stage I remember asking the Minister whether it was necessary to charge for the occupation of road space and whether the department felt that to impose a financial penalty was a way of ensuring that people digging holes in the road may be encouraged to do so more quickly. I remember that he nodded at the time, about which I remarked. Clearly that is part of the philosophy.
I still wonder whether it is entirely wise. There are two views on this matter, one from the utilities and one from the local authority associations. The utilities, not unnaturally, feel that it is an unnecessary imposition on them, particularly in the light of their having to put down money in advance. There may be some relief from the fact that the noble Lord has just moved Amendment No. 141. However, that does not go the whole way.
When we look back to the Horne Report it reviewed the possibility of making charges in this way. It concluded that they would be of doubtful practicality, and I sympathise with that view. The report suggested that traffic-sensitive routes should be designated and special requirements be agreed for road works to take place within them.
If the scheme operates alongside the codes of practice it will inevitably be a tax on consumers, as I endeavoured to suggest at Second Reading. In a sense it is robbing Peter to pay Paul due to the structure of local government finance. All that happens in the end is that the Exchequer has to put less money into the local authority as a result of the local authority taking money from the users of the utilities. That is a curiously bureaucratic way of doing things. On the other hand, local authorities feel that it would be a useful way of disciplining the utilities when they come to dig holes in the road.
I wonder whether it is necessary for the provision to be in the Bill in this form or whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State to devise a scheme where he can deal with what I suspect are the rare occasions when people offend against the implicit intention of the Bill. It seems to be unduly bureaucratic to have a situation where all the utilities will pay money in advance of opening up the road. The Minister said that if they succeed in filling it in before the appointed time they may be rewarded in some way. However, it seems to be an unnecessarily bureaucratic way of dealing with the matter. I simply wish to take the opportunity of clause stand part to open up a general debate on Clause 67.
Lord Underhill: I should like to say a few words on this matter. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave notice that there would be a debate on clause stand part. Part of the difficulty which has arisen is the history of the matter. As compared with practically everything else in the Bill, this proposal was not the subject of proper consultation between local authority associations and the utilities. In fact
344
the proposal was floated by the Department of Transport in a consultation document issued completely separately from its consultation on the package as a whole. Throughout the Bill, we have talked of the package being a whole package. It is one that has been agreed by both the highway authorities and the utilities. Unlike other provisions in Part III of the Bill, there was no informal consultation between the department and the utilities or the highway authorities on this proposal. The first that the association of which I am president knew of the publication of the consultation document was as a result of press inquiries. That caused a considerable amount of difficulty.
During our Second Reading debate we were pleased to note that the Minister stated,
"The Secretary of State would only prescribe a charging scheme if he were satisfied that such a financial incentive was necessary to reduce the amount of disruption caused by utility works on the most traffic-sensitive streets".—[Official Report, 20/11/90; col. 671.]
I am informed that the local authority associations welcome that assurance. However, they wonder whether a provision could be introduced into the Bill to make that a definite requirement. They are not opposed to the principle as such. We hope that the provision will never be called upon unless things are breaking down. We should like to see some means of putting the assurance given by the Minister into the Bill so that everybody is aware that it is a reserve power which the Government presume is necessary.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We covered this clause at Second Reading and I am only too pleased to be able to expand on the Government's views on it. The clause was introduced because the Government want to reduce traffic congestion by every means at their disposal. I hope that that is an aim shared all around the Chamber.
Utility street works are a major cause of delays, at least some of which can be avoided. Charging would act as a powerful incentive to utilities and others to plan their works so as to take up less road space or to last less long. Even on the conservative estimates in the Horne Report, the minimum cost of delays to motorists imposed by utility works in the carriageway of roads is estimated to exceed £55 million per year. Experience with the Department of Transport's lane rental scheme has shown that savings in delay costs of about one-third were achievable, despite initial scepticism.
The wording of Clause 67 does not mean that a fee will be payable by undertakers in every case. The Secretary of State may not prescribe a scheme, or may prescribe different rates of fee, which could include free periods for different works. The power to charge would be used where it was considered most likely to achieve reductions in the amount of delay and inconvenience. A scheme could be structured so that the great majority of works not causing any more obstruction than was reasonably necessary would escape charges altogether.

345
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that charging might in some way be an indirect tax on consumers. The maximum total of charges envisaged in the Department of Transport's consultation paper represented around 1 per cent. of the cost of utility street works. I do not have a totally accurate figure but I understand that the cost of utility works is around £1 billion a year. I do not know how that relates to the total cost of the various utilities supplied to the consumer; it must be only a small proportion. We are therefore speaking of 1 per cent. of something which is itself only a small proportion of the consumer's actual cost of purchasing the utilities, service or product concerned.
Utilities could avoid passing charges on to customers by entering into lane rental type contracts with their contractors. That is certainly an opportunity which I hope they will adopt. Furthermore, local authorities would not be left out of pocket by having to administer a charging scheme. Their reasonable costs of administration will be met out of any revenue from fees.
This is a provision worth having in reserve. As the Bill makes clear, the first of any regulations made under this section would need to be brought in by an affirmative resolution instrument. Therefore, noble Lords would have an opportunity to discuss the matter again. We shall of course continue consultations with those involved on that issue. I believe it is a useful measure to be included in the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will allow Clause 67 to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before the Minister concludes, perhaps I may ask him two questions. First, is it really fair to draw a comparison between lane rentals and fees for the occupation of a highway? My understanding is that lane rental arrangements are both positive and negative, whereas as I read Clause 67(6) an estimate on the charge is made and there may be a deviation in so far as the positive is concerned—that is, that a local authority can charge more if the time used is greater than estimated—but there is no amount repayable if the work is executed in less time.
Lord Tordoff: With respect to the noble Lord, Amendment No. 141 just moved by the Minister deals with that situation; that there is the possibility of some recovery.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for reminding me of that. However, again unless I have misunderstood, when we discussed the disposition of fees the noble Lord and I were not at one as to where those fees were to go. I believe that he suggested that they were to offset the TSG. Therefore, it again appears to me that the Clause 67(6) charge is in fact more akin to an additional tax in that it does not attract any more money for improvements by the local highway authority but reduces the contribution that it receives by way of TSG.
It seemed to me on Second Reading, and still does, that while the principle may be absolutely right and
346
there is a deterrent to utilities wasting time and taking up space when they should not, it bears over-harshly on them because there is no recourse from the other side. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can help me understand a little of that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, I suppose it is meant to be a deterrent precisely to stop utilities wasting time. When I made a comparison with the lane rental scheme I did not attempt to say that it was similar to the lane rental scheme in that there is not a positive and negative as there is in that scheme. All I said was that the department's experience with the lane rental scheme is that it has shown that considerable savings can be made. I then went on to say that utilities could also enter into lane rental type schemes with their contractors which would also help in this matter.
It would be inappropriate to use local authority funds to pay bonuses to utilities but, as I said, they could enter into lane rental type contracts with their contractors to help speed matters along.
As regards the treatment of receipts, we have yet to propose how funds should be used. They would not necessarily be fully offset against TSG. That is a matter we are still considering. When I originally replied to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I gave an idea, on the principle of the tax on consumers to which my noble friend referred, of how small an amount that would be for the consumer.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister. To reiterate what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, he may not have observed that Amendment No. 141 deletes the whole of subsection (6) and therefore takes out the words,
"No amount is repayable if the works are not executed or take less time or are less extensive than was estimated".
I assume those words have been taken out deliberately by the Minister. Indeed, there is provision under the regulations in the new subsection (6) (a),
"for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed".
The question that we must ask ourselves is whether that amendment goes as far as it might in terms of leaving within the hands of the Secretary of State the ability to be more flexible than the original clause.
We accept the Minister's reassurance but it would be unfortunate if on this clause the consensus which has operated throughout the whole of the rest of the Bill were to be put in some degree of jeopardy. All I wish to say at the moment is that we will read what the Minister said. I have no doubt that the various parties, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, were somewhat surprised at this matter coming forward at a secondary stage in consultation, and we must see whether they are satisfied with the position that we have now reached. However, I suspect that further reassurance will be required from the Government. In the meantime, I certainly do not intend to vote against the clause standing part of the Bill.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 121 [Fee for occupation of a road]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 142:

347
Page 65, line 24, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) or (4) or the works take longer or are more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 68, 122, 69, 123, 70 and 124 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Contributions to costs of making good long-term damage]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 38, line 27, leave out ("a street authority") and insert ("the street authority or, in the case of a road subject to a concession within the meaning of Part I of this Act, by the concessionaire,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary in order to correct an earlier omission from the Bill and bring Clause 71 into line with the department's original intentions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 125, 72 and 126 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Duty to inform undertakers of location of apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 39, line 28, leave out from ("undertaker") to end of line 30.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 145 to 149. These amendments are necessary in order to clarify the steps to be taken by persons carrying out works in the street if they discover unmapped or unidentifiable apparatus in the course of that work. Taken together the amendments produce a more workable procedure to be followed under Clause 73.
The first amendment removes a redundant provision contained in Clause 73(1) (b); namely, that an undertaker must inform the undertaker concerned when he finds apparatus in a location where the undertaker has no record of there being any apparatus. This provision merely repeats that contained in Clause 73(1) (a).
The second amendment makes provision for where an undertaker carrying out works in a street finds unidentifiable apparatus. In such cases he will be required to mark its location and put a general description of the apparatus on the records which he is required to keep under Clause 72. If anyone else finds unidentifiable apparatus while carrying out works in the street they will be required to inform the
348
street authority. The effect of this will be to enable more complete records of apparatus in streets to be built up over time.
The final amendment consists of a minor drafting correction which is consequential to the second amendment. The other amendments deal with exactly the same situation in Scotland. I hope your Lordships will agree that these are sensible amendments. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: The Minister referred to Amendment No. 143. He dealt with the provisions of the clause concerning apparatus which is found and the necessity for that to be recorded. He also explained what action should be taken if apparatus is found by another organisation. It must tell the street authority. We have no objection to the amendment as such. However, there is one important question to be asked of the Minister. What do the Government envisage the street authority doing with the information when it is compiled? The Bill simply states that the information shall be recorded, but what should be done with it when it is recorded?
Lord Tordoff: I wish to refer back to the days when the Select Committee on Science and Technology was considering digital mapping and whether such provisions would encourage local authorities to extend the degree of that mapping for their areas.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the local authorities will merely put this information on their records. If someone comes along and claims a particular piece of apparatus they will know where it is. On the whole, I believe this provision applies to pieces of apparatus which no one knows much about. Digital mapping is an interesting subject. A scheme along the lines which we envisage for the register is already operating, using digital mapping. I believe it is operating in the West Midlands, and that is a pioneer area. I hope that scheme will be followed up around the country.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 39, line 33, at end insert:
("(1A) Where a person executing works of any description in the street finds apparatus which does not belong to him and is unable, after taking such steps as are reasonably practicable, to ascertain to whom the apparatus belongs, he shall—

(a) if he is an undertaker, note on the records kept by him under section 72(1) (in such manner as may be prescribed) the location of the apparatus he has found and its general description; and

(b) in any other case, inform the street authority of the location and general description of the apparatus he has found.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 39, line 34, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 127 [Duty to inform undertakers of location of apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 147 to 149:
Page 68, line 8, leave out from ("undertaker") to end of line 10.
Page 68, line 13, at end insert:
("(1A) Where a person executing works of any description in the road finds apparatus which does not belong to him and is unable, after taking such steps as are reasonably practicable, to ascertain whom the apparatus belongs to, he shall—

(a) if he is an undertaker, note on the records kept by him under section 126(1) (in such manner as may be prescribed) the location of the apparatus he has found and its general description; and

(b) in any other case, inform the road works authority of the location and general description of the apparatus he has found.").

Page 68, line 14, after ("(1)") insert ("or(1A)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments just now. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Duty to maintain apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 39, line 40, after first ("street") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 40, line 5, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment in order to eliminate an inconsistency in Clause 74(2). It replaces the reference to major road works by major highway works, which is the term used elsewhere in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 152:
Leave out Clause 74 and insert the following new clause:
("Duty to maintain apparatus
74.—(1) An undertaker having apparatus in the street shall secure that all manholes or other surface boxes forming part of such apparatus are maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the street authority, as regards the safety of persons using the street and the structure of the street.
(2) If an undertaker fails to comply with any reasonable requirement of the street authority in relation to its obligations under subsection (1) the street authority may, after not less than seven days' notice to the undertakers, execute any works rendered necessary by such failure and recover from the undertaker the costs reasonably incurred in so doing.
(3) A street authority executing any works for road purposes, or in pursuance of this section, shall exercise due care to avoid damage to any undertakers' apparatus or interference with access to such apparatus and shall indemnify the undertakers against any costs or expenses incurred by the undertaker in making good any damage or interference caused in contravention of this subsection.
(4) Any dispute arising as to the compliance of the undertaker or the street authority with their obligations under this section or with any requirements of the street authority under subsection (2), the reasonableness of those requirements and the reasonableness of the costs and expenses referred to in subsections (2) and (3) shall be settled by arbitration.").
The noble Lord said: When I tabled this amendment I had not taken into account the concern of British Telecom about the Bill. My understanding is that the purpose of this clause is to require the undertaker to maintain manholes and other surface boxes at street level, such as valve covers and so forth, in a safe manner and to empower the street authority to ensure that that is done.
However, the clause as drafted suggests that the power of the highway authority may be extended to the inspection and, if necessary, the repair of both underground apparatus belonging to the undertaker and also above-ground work such as British Telecom connection boxes and cabinets. While employees of the street authority may be adequately qualified to deal with any situation arising from poor maintenance of a manhole which causes damage to the road surface, they will patently not be similarly qualified to work on the undertaker's pipes and cables. Such a power used wrongly in this way could easily lead to the loss of supplies to customers and in some cases to injury or even death for the street authority employees concerned.
The purpose of the amendment is purely to find out the Government's views. I shall not press the matter. We wish the Government to state more clearly the intention of the clause and at the same time to place a duty of care on the street authority not to damage manholes and surface boxes when it is carrying out the works for road purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The utilities have taken the initiative in that they consider that Clause 74 has been drafted too widely. According to them it would enable a street authority, for example, to dig up a highway in order to check the standard of maintenance of a gas main. The local authority associations have said that Clause 74 covers the needs of the highway authorities —that is to say, the ability to take action concerning, for example, a defective manhole cover which could present a road safety hazard. The authorities are further interested in ensuring that aspects of utility work like ducting are in a satisfactory state. If it is neglected or is inadequate, in certain cases it could cause the road or footway to be in a state of collapse.
The highway authorities have no interest, no locus and no competence in testing the adequacy of utility service apparatus such as pipes or cables. Clause 75 clarifies the law to ensure that the utilities are responsible for the cost of any damage that may be caused by a pipe burst or an explosion. In principle the local authority associations would not oppose an amendment to Clause 74 which endeavoured to define the street authority's areas of legitimate concern more tightly.
The local authority associations have a couple of reservations concerning the first part of the amendment which defines the authority's interest too

351
tightly and would have the effect of excluding the ducting example to which I referred earlier. According to the amendment, the authority is required to allow the utility seven days to undertake any repairs. That is unacceptable where there is a road safety hazard. In such circumstances the highway authority should have the right to act instantly.
The second part of the amendment is unnecessary and it even goes outside the scope of the Bill. Highway authorities take a good deal of care to avoid damaging the apparatus belonging to the utilities when they undertake road works, but mistakes occur and damage results. In those circumstances highway authorities undertake any remedial work themselves at their own cost or alternatively reimburse the utility for any work that it undertakes. The Bill is concerned with the regulation of utility work rather than highway authority work. In any case, custom and practice already allow for what the amendment is designed to achieve.
As regards subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause, the word "reasonable" in relation to costs has not been introduced. That is a matter to which we adverted earlier. The next point is of some interest. We are not quite sure what is the source of the reference to arbitration. That is a point I raised concerning an earlier amendment. I suspect that the utilities have identified that from other legislation. I believe that on balance the position is right, though I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The present Clause 74 affords important protection to highway authorities, transport authorities, bridge authorities and sewer authorities. These authorities must be able to satisfy themselves on behalf of members of the public that any undertakers' apparatus is properly maintained to secure safety, the convenience of road users, the integrity of the apparatus and of the street, land or structure concerned. If an undertaker fails to maintain his apparatus to the reasonable satisfaction of a relevant authority, it is right that the authority should he able to protect its interests by carrying out inspections or emergency works itself.
The effect of this amendment would be to remove altogether the protection from bridge authorities, transport authorities and sewer authorities. It would confine the interest of the street authority to the maintenance of manholes or other surface boxes. That is unacceptably narrow, since highway authorities also have a clear interest in the proper maintenance of buried apparatus in so far as it effects road users, safety and the structure of the street. That point was made clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. An undertaker who maintains his apparatus properly need only afford reasonable facilities for the street authority to ascertain that he does so. That does not seem an onerous or unreasonable requirement.
The amendment also seeks to deal with responsibilities of the street authority executing works for road purposes. Works for road purposes are not the subject of this clause or this part of the Bill since they are mainly regulated by other highways legislation. However, the government amendment to insert a new
352
clause before Clause 76 dealing with works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the street should afford undertakers additional protection. That provision requires street authorities to give the owner of apparatus reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works for road purposes, and to comply with reasonable requirements for the protection of the apparatus.
I hope that I have explained the Government's position with reasonable clarity. As there has been a short debate on this subject between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I shall read most carefully what has been said. If there is anything that needs to be done I shall come back to my noble friend. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the question of arbitration and sought elucidation on that point. Can my noble friend say anything further?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I can help the noble Earl before the Minister replies. I raised the matter only because it had arisen in relation to an earlier debate. The Minister said that he would look at the matter. I was only expressing interest in the fact that the utilities had raised precisely that issue.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Far be it from me to comment on something in my noble friend's amendment, but I mentioned arbitration earlier in a different context. It is for my noble friend to say what he means by arbitration, not me.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I thank my noble friend for his reply. The debate has been useful in clarifying the Government's views, as have all the debates on this part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 [Duty to maintain apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 68, line 20, after first ("road") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 [Liability for damage or toss caused]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 40, line 23, leave out second ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 155. These are drafting amendments which are proposed in order to make clear that an undertaker's liability for loss or damage under Clause 75 includes that suffered by both the street authority and any other relevant authority, and also any other person who has apparatus in the street in question. Amendment No. 155 applies the same provision to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 75, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to intervene at this stage without having given the Minister notice of my intention to do so. This morning a number of noble Lords will have received a briefing from the Cable Authority. If the authority is paying someone to lobby Parliament, it ought to look at the fee he is charging. To consider such a briefing on the day the Bill starts its second day in Committee is beyond the call of duty. Nevertheless, the authority raises a number of matters on which minor clarification from the Minister would be helpful. The authority says that Clause 75 is worrying. It realises that care must be taken when carrying out work in the street but it is concerned that it may be liable even in situations where there is no fault on its part.
Clause 75(3) states:
"The liability of an undertaker under this section arises —(a) whether or not the damage or loss is attributable to negligence on his part or on the part of any person for whom he is responsible".
I can understand why the Cable Authority has some minor worries. I wonder whether the Minister can assist the cable companies in their difficulty by explaining how far they will be held responsible for matters for which they do not think they are responsible.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I received a letter from one of the cable companies only the day before yesterday. Mine was slightly in advance of that sent to other noble Lords. The cable companies have obviously just woken up to this piece of legislation. They will be treated as licensed undertakers rather than as statutory undertakers. I have offered a meeting with my officials to clarify any points the cable companies may have. I have not heard whether they wish to take up that offer. I hope they will, and I hope that we shall be able at least to explain to them what this is all about.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the Minister.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 [Liability for damage or loss caused]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 69, line 2, leave out second ("or") and insert ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 69, line 3, leave out ("street") and insert ("road").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 157:
Before Clause 76, insert the following new clause:
Works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the street
(".—(1) Where works for road purposes are likely to affect apparatus in the street, the authority executing the works shall—

(a) give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

(b) comply with any requirement made by him which is—

(i) reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it, and

(ii) reasonably practicable having regard to the time when the requirement is made.

(2) In the case of emergency works the above requirements shall be taken to have been complied with if the authority take such steps towards satisfying them as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
(3) An authority who fail to comply with subsection (1) commit an offence in respect of each failure and are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(4) In proceedings against an authority for such an offence it is a defence for them to show that the failure was attributable—

(a) to their not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of a person's apparatus, or

(b) to their not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that their ignorance was not due to any negligence on their part or to any failure to make inquiries which they ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 157 inserts a new clause before Clause 76 and corrects an earlier omission from this part of the Bill. It makes provision where works for road purposes are likely to affect apparatus in the street.
The new clause is similar to Clause 62, as amended, which deals with undertakers' works likely to affect other apparatus in the street, but applies to works for roads purposes. It places similar requirements on authorities carrying out such works to give the person to whom any apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the works, and to comply with any reasonable requirement which that person may impose. Subject to similar defence provisions to those in Clause 62, failure to comply with the duties laid down in subsection (1) of the new clause is a criminal offence. The second amendment does the same for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Duties as to taking of necessary measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 41, line 9, leave out ("promoting authority") and insert ("highway, bridge or transport authority concerned").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167 and 168. These amendments are necessary to delete the undefined term "promoting authority" and references to it in this part of the Bill. The first two are drafting amendments. They are necessary in order to clarify to whom the provisions of Clause 76 ("diversionary works") apply. The first replaces the previously

355
undefined term "promoting authority" with a list of the types of authority to which the clause applies, that is; the highway, bridge or transport authority concerned. The second deletes the subsequent reference to "promoting authority" in Clause 76.
The third is a drafting amendment to Clause 77, made necessary as a result of the first two amendments. It deletes the reference to "promoting authority", and also makes clearer the provisions of subsection (3). It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring an undertaker whose apparatus has been altered to give credit for any betterment to his apparatus due to the alteration, against the costs which the authority concerned would otherwise have to bear. The fourth is a consequential drafting amendment to the arbitration provision of Clause 77, and also replaces the term "promoting authority". The amendments to Clause 130, and the second and third amendments to Clause 131, do the same for Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My only concern in this connection is whether in fact the term,
"highway, bridge or transport authority",
is sufficiently comprehensive. What would be the position of a developer? Further, are there any other possibilities which ought to be caught by this amendment? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to my queries.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that there are no other possibilities; but I shall certainly look into the matter. If we have missed something out, I shall return to the matter at a later stage and put forward another amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 41, line 22, leave out ("promoting").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 160:
Before Clause 130, insert the following new clause:
Works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the road
(".—(1) Where works for road purposes are likely to affect apparatus in the road, the authority executing the works shall

(a) give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

(b) comply with any requirement made by him which is—

(i) reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it, and

(ii) reasonably practicable having regard to the time when the requirement is made.

(2) In the case of emergency works the above requirements shall be taken to have been complied with if the authority take such steps towards satisfying them as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
(3) An authority who fail to comply with subsection (1) commit an offence in respect of each failure and are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(4) In proceedings against an authority for such an offence it is a defence for them to show that the failure was attributable—

(a) to their not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of a person's apparatus, or

(b) to their not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that their ignorance was not due to any negligence on their part or to any failure to make inquiries which they ought reasonably to have made.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 130 [Duties as to taking of necessary measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 161 and 162:
Page 69, line 35, leave out ("promoting authority") and insert ("roads, bridge or transport authority concerned").
Page 70, line 3, leave out ("promoting").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Sharing of cost of necessary measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 41, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert ("allowable costs of the measures needing to be taken in relation to the apparatus in consequence of the works, or in order to facilitate their execution, shall be borne by the highway, bridge or transport authority concerned and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed.
Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 166 which applies to Scotland. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the provisions of Clause 77(1) regarding the sharing of the costs of diversionary works. The clause as presently drafted is expressed in terms of payment by the highway, bridge or transport authority concerned to the undertaker. However, in practice payment may be due in either direction, depending on who actually carries out the works to the undertaker's apparatus.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 164 and 165:
Page 42, line 1, leave out from ("The") to ("from") in line 4 and insert ("Secretary of State may by regulations require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him").
Page 42, line 6, leave out from ("payable") to ("be") in line 8 and insert ("by virtue of this section shall, in default of agreement between the parties,").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 158. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 131 [Sharing of cost of necessary measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 166 to 168:
Page 70, line 15, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 18 and insert ("allowable costs of the measures needing to be taken in relation to the apparatus in consequence of the

357
works, or in order to facilitate their execution, shall be borne by the roads, bridge or transport authority concerned and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed.
Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.").
Page 70, line 27, leave out from ("The") to ("from") in line 30 and insert ("Secretary of State may by regulations require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him").
Page 70, line 32, leave out from ("payable") to ("be") in line 34 and insert ("by virtue of this section shall, in default of agreement between the parties,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Highway authorities, highways and related matters]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 42, line 39, leave out ("maintenance").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 170. These are minor amendments which exclude works for the maintenance of a road hump from the definition of "major highway works" under Clause 78(3) (e), which applies for the purposes of Clauses 76 and 77. Such works will still be classed as "works for road purposes" under subsection (2) (b) of that clause, being carried out under powers conferred by Part V of the Highways Act 1980. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132: [Roads authorities, roads and related matters]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 71, line 14, leave out ("maintenance").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 79, 133, 80 and 134 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Public sewers and sewer authorities]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 44, line 15, leave out ("such requirements") and insert ("any requirement").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 172 to 174. These are drafting amendments which bring the opening words of Clause 81(3) into line with the wording of Clause 62(1) (b) as amended, and with Clause 81(3) (b) (ii), where the references are to "the requirement" in the singular. Similar amendments apply to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 44, line 15, leave out ("as are") and insert ("which is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 [Sewers]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 173 and 174:
Page 72, line 31, leave out ("such requirements") and insert ("any requirement").
Page 72, line 31, leave out ("as are") and insert ("which is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 82, 136, 83, 137, 84 and 138 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Works affecting level crossings or tram-lines]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 46, line 2, leave out ("tram-lines") and insert ("a tramway").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak to Amendments Nos. 176 to 178. These amendments replace the references to "tram-lines" in Clause 85 by the wider and more appropriate reference to a tramway. The word "tramway" is defined in Clause 95 of the Bill and includes tram-lines, and also trolley vehicle lines.
The first amendment replaces the reference to tram-lines in Clause 85(1) ("works affecting level crossings or tram-lines"). That has the effect of extending the protection afforded to tramway undertakings to include not just the tramlines themselves but any overhead cables, wires or any other apparatus.
The second amendment is necessary as a consequence of the first. It removes the now redundant Clause 85(6). The other amendments do the same for Scotland. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate the importance of the amendments. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have a brief question for the Minister: does the amendment comprehend guided busways?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not entirely sure what a guided busway is. If it has rails, I suppose that it is a tramway; if it is overhead, it will be a trolley vehicle.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have included a trolley vehicle. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is about to explain.
Lord Tordoff: I do not profess to be an expert on this matter, but there is new technology where electrical or electronic devices are laid beneath the road surface. That will allow buses to be guided down a certain track. It is not technology that is widely used in this country at the moment. It is something that could well come in the future. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right and that it would not be covered by the present provisions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: If it is a provision which requires the road to be dug up in order to put something underneath, I can assure the noble Lord that it will somehow get into the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister is confident that the Bill is that comprehensive? Will he write to us on the point? That might be the best way of dealing with the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 46, line 38, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 [Works affecting level crossings or tram-lines]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 74, line 20, leave out ("tram-lines") and insert ("a tramway").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 75, line 10, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 179:
Before Clause 86, insert the following new clause:
Power of street authority to undertake street works
(".—(1) A street authority may enter into an agreement with an undertaker for the execution by the authority on behalf of the undertaker of any street works.
(2) The agreement may contain such terms as to payment and otherwise as the parties consider appropriate.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any powers exercisable by the street authority apart from this section.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 180:
Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause:
Power of road works authority to undertake road works
(".—(1) A road works authority may enter into an agreement with an undertaker for the execution by the authority on behalf of the undertaker of any road works.
(2) The agreement may contain such terms as to payment and otherwise as the parties consider appropriate.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any powers exercisable by the road works authority apart from this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 140, 87, 141, 88, 142, 89, 143 and 90 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Arbitration]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 76, line 34, leave out from ("be") to ("a") in line 35 and insert ("settled by arbitration shall be referred for determination by").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91, 145 and 92 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 146 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 93 and 147 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Meaning of "prescribed" and regulations generally]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 50, line 18, at end insert:
("(4) Before making any regulations under this Part the Secretary of State shall consult with persons representative of highway authorities and utilities.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment will be clearly seen from the wording set out on the Marshalled List.
The Committee will recall that on Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed appreciation of the work carried out by the local authority associations and the National Joint Utility Group in preparing proposals for legislation arising from the recommend-dations of the Home Report. That was done through the auspices of the HAUC. In his response to those comments the Minister gave an assurance that there will be the fullest consultation with representatives of the utilities and the highway authorities before any regulations on council practice are made or approved.
That assurance is welcome, but there is concern that once the Bill is on the statute book the Government could proceed to make the regulations and publish codes of practice without fully involving the HAUC in the process. Ministers and government policies change. In fact there has been a change of Secretary of State since the Bill was published. There could easily be a change of government shortly. It will be appreciated that the enacting of the Bill will not mean that the HAUC can give up its work. Indeed, it will be necessary to keep in being the working parties which have done such splendid work until now so as they can frame further items in connection with the legislation.
We want to ensure that on the face of the Bill will be the assurances of consultation with representatives of the highway authorities and the public utilities to reassure members of the HAUC who devote their time and resources to this valuable work; in other words, we want the work to continue, but we want the provision written onto the face of the Bill, much as we appreciate the assurance the Minister gave. As is often said, an assurance given by a Minister does not necessarily mean that it will always be carried out if there are changes of Government or policy.
Lord Tordoff: I put my name to the amendment. I do not suppose that the Government are prepared to accept it for the fairly good and sufficient reason that to put into an Act an organisation which may not continue for perpetuity is perhaps tempting fate. Nevertheless, it is an opportunity to pay tribute to the work that has been done by the utilities, the highway authorities and the local authorities in bringing the Bill to fruition. We shall have further occasion to

361
come back to it. I was glad to put my name to the amendment because it is an opportunity to show how well these groups of people with conflicting interests have come together to work on the legislation. If it is possible to put the provision on the face of the Bill, I should welcome it.
Reverting to an earlier remark this evening on whether the Bill referred to Northern Ireland, how good it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on the Front Bench. I hope that in due course he will bring legislation before your Lordships' House to cover similar situations in Northern Ireland.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Although I did not put my name to the amendment, I brought the subject up in my Second Reading speech. We hope that the HAUC recommendations will be out before the Bill goes on the statute book so that the utilities may have the opportunity to put safeguards into the Bill in case they are not fully satisfied with the requirements. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that this party will be in government after the next election.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We could go on arguing about that for a little while but now is perhaps not the time to do it, at the end of a long day. Of course I wish to join noble Lords who have paid tribute to all those in the highway authorities and utilities on the work they have done so far in developing the detailed standards for utility street works. The Department of Transport has also been closely involved and I pay tribute to its officials who worked as hard as the others.
It is the Secretary of State's normal practice to consult interested parties before making regulations which may affect them. In the case of the various regulations which may be prescribed under this part of the Bill, representatives of the highway authorities, utilities and other undertakers of street works would be consulted before regulations were made. I can certainly give that absolute categorical assurance for this Government, whoever happens to be Secretary of State or Minister of State. I can give no assurance on behalf of a future government were it not of this colour. However, I do not anticipate that eventuality.
It would be wrong to single out the particular people, as the amendment does. Therefore I cannot accept it. Nevertheless I give the assurance once more that consultations will continue.
Lord Underhill: As I have already said, we appreciate the assurances given by the Minister; I am pleased that he has reiterated them tonight. I cannot understand why the Government are shy of including this reference in the Bill. Many Bills have gone through your Lordships' House which referred to consultations with particular organisations and local authority associations. As we have been waiting five years for the Horne Report to be put into legislation, we wish to make certain that the matter is dealt with correctly and nothing is missed. That is why it is so important that consultations should take place. Although we have the assurance from the Minister, I wish to see it in the legislation.
362
It is not a matter of space and time. We have had to devote a vast amount of time to deal with amendments to sections of the Bill referring to Scotland when the whole matter could have been dealt with in three or four clauses covering the differences between Scotland and England and Wales. It is not a question of adding more to the Bill. A simple amendment such as mine would hearten the utilities and the highway authorities. If the Minister could see his way to including that in the Bill, everybody would be greatly encouraged.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The point that I was trying to make is that the noble Lord singles out two organisations which should be consulted. That is quite right, they will be, but there are other people who might need to be consulted as well. If one puts on the face of the Bill only those two organisations, if others are not consulted they will complain. I cannot go much further than to continue giving the assurance that of course we will consult. That should be good enough.
Lord Underhill: While that assurance is not good enough, it is satisfactory; therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I apologise to the Committee. I inadvertently included Schedule 6 in a group of clauses which I invited the Committee to allow to stand part of the Bill. I should have said Schedule 7.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 148 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 183 and 184:
Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
(""traffic" includes pedestrians and animals;").
Page 51, line 8, at end insert:
("(4) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define "disability" and other expressions) applies in relation to the provisions of this Part as to the provisions of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 183 and 184.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 149 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 185 and 186:
Page 79, line 18, at end insert:
(""traffic" includes pedestrians and animals;").
Page 79, line 33, at end insert:
("(4) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define "disability" and other expressions) applies in relation to the provisions of this Part as to the provisions of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 135 and 186.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 51, line 17, at end insert:

("disability

(see section 95(4))")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 51, leave out line 35.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 191. This is a drafting amendment which removes an unnecessary entry in the index of defined expressions. The term "prospectively maintainable highways" only appears in Clause 43(3). That provision refers directly to Clause 79, which sets out what streets are prospectively maintainable highways. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 51, line 51, at end insert:

("traffic

section 95(4)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 150 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 79, line 42, at end insert:

("disability

(see section 95(4))")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 191 and 192:
Page 80, leave out line 7.
Page 80, line 20, at end insert:

(" statutory right

section 149(1)

traffic

section 149(1)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 151 [Offences by bodies corporate or Scottish partnerships]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 80, line 45, at end insert:
("(3) For the purpose of this section it shall be the duty of all undertakers to have available for inspection free of charge at all reasonable times by any person making inquiry, a list of all persons mentioned in subsection (1) above and their duties and responsibilities in relation to the management and control of the undertaking and in relation to any street works and to retain that information for a period of ten years and to keep those records up to date.
(4) Failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (3) shall render the undertaker concerned liable to a fine not
364
exceeding Level 3 on the standard scale and to the withdrawal of any street works licence or licences held by them following summary conviction in the magistrates court.").
The noble Lord said: The situation in the Bill at the present time merely provides that various company officers shall share liability with the company but there is no requirement for them to be identified or identifiable. This amendment seeks to remedy that gap and to place the onus on undertakers to keep adequate records and to disclose them on demand. The amendment seeks to impose a fine for non-compliance. The associated provision for revocation of street works licences is also necessary.
Placing things in, on or under the highway is a privilege and not a right. The fact that an organisation fails to keep proper records would indicate that this privilege should be withdrawn. However, there is a wider implication to all this. There have been a number of cases which have shown either the indifference of management, the pressures imposed on management or the complacency of management. On a number of occasions matters of this kind have been revealed. I refer to catastrophes such as Zeebrugge and Clapham. One simply cannot shrug aside these factors. More and more emphasis is placed by head office managements on greater efficiency. There is also the risk of on-site corner cutting because of the economic pressures that are imposed. That can easily reduce the quality of site operations. Middle and senior management should be required to demon-strate clearly that works under their control are planned, properly managed and operated safely, and that the whole undertaking is carried out efficiently. If there is a failure in that regard, our submission is that a prosecution should ensue. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He referred to the Zeebrugge case. However, I believe it is way over the top to refer to such a case in connection with what we are dealing with in the Bill. It seems a little unfair for a junior manager to have to identify himself specifically in such works, when it is the company that is responsible for them. If such a manager has to identify himself, could an individual claim be made against him subsequently? What cover would such a manager have within the company?
Further, I question the need to retain a record for 10 years. Ten years is a very long time and much happens during that period. I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to justify that period.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has raised a point to which the utilities are totally opposed. Clause 151 is similar in terms to Section 45 of the Gas Act 1986, Section 102 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, Section 177 of the Water Act 1989 and Section 108 of the Electricity Act 1989. All of those provisions are similar to the general provisions contained in Section 733 of the Companies Act 1985. None of those statutes contains a provision of the type proposed in the amendment. The amendment is unnecessary. The effective enforcement

365
of Clause 151 would place a greater burden on the main statutory undertakers than that already imposed upon them by the specific legislation that I have cited.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: One of the main objectives of Parts III and IV of the Bill is to make undertakers, including the major utility companies, fully and clearly responsible for the effects of their street works. That is what we have been discussing all afternoon and evening. It would not improve that accountability to require the publication of comprehensive lists of individuals and their responsibilities as proposed in the amendment. I believe that that would be an extremely bureaucratic proposal.
However, numerous criminal sanctions are provided against an undertaker who fails to comply with his duties under the Bill. The clause makes clear that where an offence by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance or through the neglect of certain individuals, the individual as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and may be proceeded against. Surely that should be enough to ensure individual accountability. I do not believe that we need to go to the lengths proposed by the noble Lord in the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not really accept that. The amendment seeks to require all undertakers to keep good personal records. That must be an advantage. If they do not do so a small fine might be imposed.
I believe that listing and identifying officers and directors is a critical element in bringing home a prosecution against them as individuals, avoiding all the problems which accompany prosecuting a company. The fact that they may find themselves unable to undertake any road works may encourage some compliance. Finally, it gives an ordinary plaintiff who is injured or suffers loss an opportunity to find the guilty party. It will also assist the proper authorities to prepare a prosecution.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that invoking the examples of Zeebrugge and Clapham was disproportionate. In those cases it was demonstrated very vividly and tragically that accountability was notably absent.
Road works are very dangerous places for both road users and road workers. We should not fail to recognise the significance of that. Of course road users are also responsible. There is a great deal of stupidity on their part. However, there can be no doubt that bad signing, poor planning and negligence by those responsible are significant causes of accidents at road works.
I have heard what the Minister had to say and noted the criticisms of two noble Lords. I do not want to detain the Committee at this stage. Therefore I shall study with care what they have said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I shall probably bring the matter back.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 151 agreed to.
Clauses 152 and 153 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 99, line 4, at end insert:
(" . In section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of builders' skips), in subsection (11) (definition of "builder's skip" and "owner")) for "and section 140" substitute ", section 140 and section 140A".
. After section 140 of the Highways Act 1980, insert—
"Builders' skips: fee for occupation of the highway.
140A.—(1) The owner of a builder's skip deposited on a highway maintainable at the public expense shall pay to the highway authority the prescribed fee for occupation of the highway.
(2) The fee payable shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the duration and extent of the occupation.
Different rates of fee may be prescribed according to the place and time at which the skip is deposited and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.
(3) A person applying to the highway authority for permission under section 139 above shall submit together with his application an estimate of the likely duration and extent of the occupation of the highway; and the appropriate fee on the basis of that information must be paid before the authority grant permission.
(4) The Minister may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) or the occupation of the highway lasts longer or is more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.
(5) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 196 and 197. This is a quite interesting group of amendments. This measure takes the form of three additions to be inserted in the Highways Act 1980. The amendments enable the introduction of schemes to charge owners of skips, scaffolding and builders' materials for the road space they occupy.
The amendments would give effect to the Government's proposal in their consultation document, published in September 1989, to apply any charging scheme to owners of skips, scaffolding and builders' materials. In that document, the Government recognised that such activities often cause serious disruption to traffic. It is believed that the introduction of charges would act as a powerful incentive to builders, developers and others to reduce the impact on traffic of their works.
The first two amendments consist of new sections which contain enabling powers by which the Secretary of State could require local highway authorities to introduce such schemes. They closely resemble the amended provisions in the Bill for charging undertakers for the occupation of road space during street works, which we have already debated under Clause 67.
The, third amendment consists of an amendment to Section 325 of the Highways Act 1980. It provides that the first set of regulations made under the provisions of these amendments should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. So again it is similar to the other clause, Clause 67.
I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a useful measure to put into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: In principle we support these new sections. I believe that there is a convincing case for them. However, I want to raise a few points with the Minister. I know that the local authority associations fully support this matter. The sections should be capable of being implemented separately from the regime for charging utilities. They should not be caught by the requirement that other anti-congestion provisions of the Act should be shown not to have worked. I ask the Minister to confirm that that is the case.
Will he also confirm that before these decisions are implemented discussions will be held with the associations on the details of the mechanisms by which the charging regime is to be implemented and on the financial arrangements? That point is of particular significance because the consultation document underlined the fact that the Department of Transport would set a fee and the Government would deduct the income likely to come from the authority's revenue support grant less an element for administration of the charge, and the Government would set an element for administration. In effect, that means that the charge will resemble something like back-door taxation and there is no likelihood that it will result in any extra investment for transport. Indeed, against the backcloth of, for example, the community charge, if one assumes that the Government underestimate the cost of administering the charge, it will lead to a cut in the resources available.
In that regard therefore I ask the Government to give an undertaking that any revenue generated by the charge will be made available for additional investment in transport and also to undertake to agree any administration costs under the LAAs.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should like to ask my noble friend a very simple question. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and I do not think that he covered my point. It occurs to me that under the provisions of these amendments a utility contracting for certain works with a civil contractor who deposits a skip, scaffolding, piles of bricks or whatever will be charged a certain amount and at the same time the utility, having given notice of its intention to do certain works and agreed to certain fees, will have the first charge represented to it from the sub-contractor and in other words pay twice.
I am quite sure that it is not the intention of the Government that a utility should have a double charge imposed upon it under Clause 67 and under the charges to which the amendment refers. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the situation.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Clearly, double indemnity would be an unfortunate outcome.
In general I welcome the amendments, particularly in relation to building works in London. Every morning I pass a site in Great Peter Street. The pavement has a construction built over it. Theoretically there is still a way through for pedestrians until the workers park their motorcycles under the cover that is provided. Outside on this narrowed road there are a series of skips deposited on the pavement. Forklift trucks rush up and down, moving the skips, and various other large motorised units shift the bigger skips. On the other side of the road, where the meters have been covered so that motorists cannot park, we find large lorries parked. I wonder who is paying for this. As a community charge payer in the City of Westminster, I suspect that it may be me. Therefore, I welcome the idea that these people should pay a reasonable price for taking up land that ought to belong to the motorist.
I accept the qualifications that have been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Lucas, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful for the general reception that has been given to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has given a good example of the type of problem that the amendments are intended to help resolve. I am not saying that we can cure every single problem, but contractors will be given an incentive, to move their skips off the road and on to the site if possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether the amendment would have to be implement-ed together with Clause 67. I see no reason why it should be. The two provisions could be implemented separately and probably will be in the case of different sites. I can assure the noble Lord that consultations will take place with local authorities. I do not know whether additional revenues will be generated by the charges that are being put into transport. I will look at that matter and come back to the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked me to make sure that the utilities would not have to pay twice. I take that point on board and I will reflect on the matter. I hope that the Committee will agree to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 99, line 8, at end insert:
("1A. In Section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), in subsection (1) omit the words "in Greater London other than a metropolitan road."
1B. In section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), for subsection (2) substitute "(2) If, in the case of any highway, it appears to the highway authority that any of the following persons, namely—

(a) any person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above, or

369

(b) where the highway is not a metropolitan road, the highway authority acting in the exercise of a statutory power to break up or open the highway, has caused any unnecessary obstruction for the purposes of this section, the highway authority may proceed as provided by subsection (4) below."

1C. In section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), for subsection (4) substitute "(4) In the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above, the highway authority may by notice require the person causing the obstruction to take such steps as may appear to the highway authority to be necessary, and are specified in the notice, to mitigate or discontinue the obstruction."
1D. In section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), delete from "and the Greater London Council" to the end of the subsection.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment represents what we believe to be a logical step in bringing the national position into line with what occurs inside London. There is a case for having uniform provisions throughout the country in relation to roads and the control of works and objects which are placed on roads. The fact is that a traffic jam in Manchester is as objectionable as one that occurs in London. In making representations to my noble friend and to me, the Automobile Association pointed out that, as the police are usually the first to know of obstructions which are placed on roads, it follows that they should notify the highway authorities to have them removed. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The procedure by which street authorities can require undertakers to avoid unnecessary obstructions in the street is provided in Clauses 59 and 113. They are based closely on the provision in Section 160 of the Highways Act 1980, which is to be repealed by the Bill. They have the same effect as the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. If he examines those clauses in the Bill he will find that there is no problem.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I listened with care to the Minister's comments. They will not satisfy the Automobile Association because it was aware of those provisions. However, I shall examine the matter further, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 196 and 197:
Page 99, line 15, at end insert:
(" . After section 171 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of deposit of building materials, &c.) insert—
"Works under s. 169 or s. 171: fee for occupation of the highway.
171A.—(1) A person who executes any of the following works in a highway maintainable at the public expense—

(a) erecting a relevant structure within the meaning of section 169(1) above, or

(b) making any such deposit or excavation as is mentioned in section 171(1) above,

shall pay to the highway authority the prescribed fee for occupation of the highway.
(2) The fee payable shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the duration of the works and the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by them.
Different rates of fee may he prescribed according to the description of works, the place and time at which they are executed and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.
(3) A person applying to the highway authority for a licence under section 169 or consent under section 171 shall submit together with his application an estimate of the likely duration and extent of the works; and the appropriate fee on the basis of that information must be paid before the authority issue the licence or give their consent.
(4) The Minister may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) or the works take longer or are more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
(5) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.").
Page 100, line 19, at end insert:
(" . In section 325 of the Highways Act 1980 (provisions as to regulations, schemes and orders), in subsection (2) (a) (regulations subject to annulment) after "section 257(4) above" insert "or such regulations as are mentioned in subsection (2A) below"; and after that subsection insert—
"(2A) A statutory instrument containing the first regulations prescribing fees for the purposes of section 140A, or section 171A(1) (a) or (b), shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 101, line 17, after ("A") insert ("local").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 197B, 197C, 197M, 197N, 198B, 198D, 198E, 203C, 203E, 203F and 203G. This is a group of technical drafting amendments. As Part II of Schedule 8 is complicated and technical a word of explanation may be in order. The provisions in Parts I and II of the Bill mean that a number of minor changes are needed to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The schedule has been drafted so as to apply equally to England and Wales on the one hand and to Scotland on the other. The amendments in this group are all minor. They correct a few errors in the schedule as drafted and add some further amendments for the same purpose to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I hope that they do not call for further comment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 197B and 197C:
Page 101, line 37, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
Page 103, line 28, at end insert:
("(3A) In subsection (3A) (power to make order or issue notice for purposes of clearing litter or cleaning)—

371

(a) for "highway or roads authority" substitute "traffic authority", and

(b) for "highway or road" substitute "road".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 197D to 197F:
Page 104, line 16, after ("apply") insert ("in relation to a road, or part of a road,").
Page 104, line 18, leave out from first ("the") to ("is") and insert ("road or part").
Page 104, line 19, at end insert:
("This does not prevent the making of regulations under subsection (2) above before that date, so as to come into force in relation to that road or part on that date.").
The noble Lord said: These are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197G:
Page 104, line 21, at end insert:
("24A. After section 17 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 insert—
"Further provisions as to special roads.
17A.—(1) On the date declared by the traffic authority, by notice published in the prescribed manner, to be the date on which a special road, or a part of a special road, is open for use as a special road, any existing order under section 1, 6, 9 or 84 of this Act, and any direction under section 82(2) of this Act, relating to that road or part shall cease to have effect.
(2) This is without prejudice to the power to make orders or directions under those provisions in relation to the road or part as a special road; and any such power may he exercised before the date referred to above, so as to take effect on that date.
(3) The procedure for making an order applies in such a case with such modifications as may be prescribed.".").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198A. Amendment No. 197G effectively preserves the present rule that if an existing road is made a special road by an order under the Highways Act 1980 or the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, the traffic and speed limit orders in force will cease to apply. We shall need this provision as a general rule even though it will now be possible to make new orders of that kind applying to special roads.
Amendment No. 198A, taken with Amendment No. 197G, removes a possible doubt as to whether a 30 mph speed limit can be imposed on a special road. It may, on occasion, be appropriate to impose a 30 mph limit on a special road provided under this Bill —for example, a tunnel—and we want it placed beyond doubt that this can be done. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197H:
Page 104, line 41, leave out ("applies") and insert ("shall be made or apply").
The noble Lord said: This is another small drafting amendment upon which I need not elaborate. It merely continues the effect of the existing provisions rather more accurately than is achieved by the present drafting of paragraph 27 of the schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197J:
Page 106, leave out lines 7 to 11.
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes an added subsection which on further examination proved unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a power to make procedure regulations applying to Section 29 orders in Part IV of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197K:
Page 107, line 16, at end insert:
("(2A) In subsection (3) (c) (matters to be taken into account in making orders), for the words from "parking accommodation" to "roads" substitute "off-street parking accommodation, whether in the open or under cover,".").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment for consistency with other changes in this schedule. Section 43(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 refers to "highways" in the text for England and Wales and to "roads" in the text for Scotland. This amendment substitutes wording which applies throughout Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197L:
Page 107, line 19, leave out paragraph 40.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 203D. These amendments remove an unintended repeal of a power in Section 49 of the 1984 Act. The power concerns the removal of parked vehicles by local authorities in an emergency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 197M and 197N:
Page 107, line 20, at end insert:
("40A. In section 53(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for "highways" or, in Scotland, "roads" substitute "highways or, in Scotland, roads".").
Page 108, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 23 and insert:
("46.—(1) Section 68 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (placing of traffic signs in connection with exercise of other powers) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (a), omit the reference to section 30.
(3) In subsections (2) and (3)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 109, line 16, leave out ("street") and insert ("carriageway").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects a minor drafting error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 198A and 198B:
Page 109, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
("(4) Omit subsection (3) (which prevents a special road from being a restricted road).").

373
Page 111, line 34, at end insert:
("64A. In section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exercise of functions by local authorities), in subsection (1) for "the highway" or, in Scotland, "the road" substitute "the highway or, in Scotland, the road".
64B. In section 124(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (orders exercisable by statutory instrument), omit the reference to section 30.
64C. In section 125(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exercise of powers in relation to boundary roads), omit the reference to section 30(1).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 198C:
Page 112, line 7, at end insert:
("67A. In section 134(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (regulations excepted from obligation to consult), for "82(1)," substitute "82(1) (b),".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is purely consequential on paragraph 54(2) of the schedule which amends Section 82(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 198D and 198E:
Page 112, line 36, at end insert:
("(2A) In paragraph 20(1) (consultation before orders are made), omit the reference to section 30.
(2B) In paragraphs 21 and 23(1) (a) (procedure regulations), omit the words "other than section 30 of this Act".
(2C) In paragraph 27(1) (variation or revocation of orders), omit the reference to section 30.").
Page 112, line 38, at end insert:
("(4) In paragraph 25 (power to make different provision in each case and as to posting notices)—

(a) for "highway authority" or, in Scotland, "roads authority" substitute "traffic authority", and

(b) for the word "highway" in the two other places where it appears substitute the word "road".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 113, line 24, leave out paragraph 77 and insert:
(" . In section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (granting of permission to place and maintain etc. apparatus under a road)—

(a) at the end of subsection (1) insert "; and such permission shall be in writing",

(b) in subsection (4) for the words from "undertakers"' to the end substitute "road works within the meaning of section 97 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1990", and

(c) at the end of subsection (5) insert ("nor does it apply to apparatus in respect of which permission has been granted under section [Permission to execute road works] of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1990 to execute road works"").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes consequential amendments to Section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 113, line 27, at end insert:
(" . After section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Fee for occupation of road
61A.—(1) A person who occupies a public road by doing anything which would require the consent or permission of a roads authority under any of the following provisions of this Act—

section 56 (works executed in or excavations under a public road);

section 58 (occupation of road for deposit of building materials and erection of scaffolding),

section 59 (placing or depositing anything in a road),

section 61 (placing, leaving, retaining, maintaining, repairing and reinstating apparatus in or under a public road), or

section 85 (depositing a builders' skip),

shall pay to the roads authority a fee for that occupation of the road.
(2) The fee payable under subsection (1) above shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations by reference to the duration and extent of the occupation.
(3) Different rates of fee may be prescribed according to the manner, place and duration of that occupation and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
(4) A person applying to the roads authority for consent or permission under the provisions of this Act referred to in subsection (1) above shall submit together with his application an estimate of the likely duration and extent of the occupation of the road; and the fee must be paid before the authority gives consent or grants permission.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (4) or the occupation of the road lasts longer or is more extensive than was estimated.

(6) The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment follows the principle of Clause 121 which allows the introduction of a scheme to charge fees to undertakers for their occupation of public roads during road works by also allowing the introduction of a scheme to charge fees to persons who occupy a public road by doing anything which would require the consent or permission of the local authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 113, line 27, at end insert:
(" . In section 85 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (control of builders' skips on road), in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) after the word "the" where it first occurs insert "written".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes it clear that the permission granted under Section 85 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 requires to be in writing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 113, line 36, at end insert:
(" . In subsection (2) of section 143 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (provisions as to regulations and orders)—

(a) in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) (orders subject to negative resolution) after the word "section" insert ""8 or",

(b) in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) (orders subject to affirmative resolution) after the word "Act" insert "or regulations made for the first time under section 61A of this Act", and

(c) in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b), omit the words "8 or" .").

The noble Lord said: This amendment amends Section 143(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to provide that orders made under Section 8 of that Act will now only require a negative resolution. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 202A and 202B:
Page 115, line 16, after ("streets") insert ("or roads").
Page 116, line 27, after ("streets") insert ("or roads").
The noble Lord said: These are small drafting amendments to apply the Scottish term alongside the one used in England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 117, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("(interpretation)") and insert:
(" .—(1) The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 is amended as follow.
(2) In section 41 (breaking open of roads) for the words "Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950" substitute "Part IV of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1990".
(3) In section 59(1)").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 119, line 39, at end insert:
("Local Government Act 1985 (c.51)
95A.—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985, paragraph 6 (guidance as to exercise of traffic powers in London and metropolitan counties) is amended as follows.
(2) In subparagraph (1) for "other than trunk roads" substitute "other than those for which he is the traffic authority".
(3) In subparagraph (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b) (i) for "trunk road" substitute "road for which the Secretary of State is the traffic authority", and

(b) in paragraph (c) for the words "trunk road" substitute the words "road for which he is the traffic authority".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment and the others are small technical amendments consequential on Clause 18 of the Bill. That clause enables the Secretary of State to construct special roads which will not become trunk roads, and other provisions of this schedule constitute him as "traffic authority" for all roads for which he is highway authority. So the
376
amendment deletes references to trunk roads and substitutes references to roads for which he is the traffic authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 203B:
Page 120, line 1, leave out ("(twice) and (3)") and insert ("(three times)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 203C to 203G:
Page 123, line 24, column 3, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
Page 123, line 37, column 3, leave out lines 37 and 38.

Page 123, line 39, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 68(1) (a), the reference to section 30. Section 82(3).").

Page 123, line 41, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 124(2), the reference to section 30. In section 125(3), the reference to section 30(1).").

Page 123, line 42, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 9— (a) in paragraph 20(1), the reference to section 30;

(b) in paragraphs 21 and 23(1) (a), the words "other than section 30 of this Act";

(c) in paragraph 27(1), the reference to section 30.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments and beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 204 and 205:

Page 123, line 46, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 143(2) (b) (ii), the words "8 or". In Schedule 7, para-graphs 2, 3(a) and (b) and 4 ")

Page 123, line 52, column 3, at end insert:

("(d) paragraph 93(2) to (22), (23) (a), (24) to (38), (40), (42), (44) (a),(b),(d) and (e) and (45) (b).")

The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 en bloc and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 206. These are minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 124, line 2, column 3, after "(2)" insert:

(",(3) (a),(6)(b), (8),(9),(11),(12),(15), (19)(a),(29),(33) and (37)").

The noble Lord said: This amendment repeals amending provisions in the Local Government Act 1985 which are overtaken by further amendments in the Bill. They are consequential on Schedule 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 205B:

Page 124, line 18, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 4, paragraph 3(2), (6) and (11).").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is another minor repeal in consequence of the repeals of the provisions of the Highways Act 1980. I commend it to your Lordships' Committee. In doing so I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee stage today. There have been some interesting moments; there have also been moments of great tedium in a rather excessive number of government amendments. I should particularly like to thank the Chairmen of the Committee who have dealt with the somewhat complicated way the Bill has been scheduled. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may join with the noble Lord, and I thank also his colleague. I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy throughout the passage of the Committee stage, which is characteristic of him and we have come to expect it. However, I must end on a note of controversy. I found every minute absolutely exhilarating. I thank my own noble friends and in particular my noble friend Lord Underhill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, with whom we have had the pleasure of working on this Committee stage. We look forward with equal exhilaration to the prospect of the Report stage.
Lord Tordoff: I join in the congratulations, which sound more like those we have on the Bill do now pass debate. It is right and proper to have these thanks as we have had a complicated series of amendments to deal with.
I know that those noble Lords who have sat in the Chair have had more difficulty with the layout of the Bill than we have had on the Floor of the Committee. I still believe that it was right to have this layout for the Committee stage once the Bill had been drafted in the way it was, but we recognise that it must have put an extra strain on noble Lords in the Chair. We are extremely grateful for the way in which they handled the procedures.
We welcome the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to the transport club, which, as I have said before, is a very exclusive group of people, as can be seen at this time of night. I thank the Minister for his assistance and courtesy and I hope that we may now all go home.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 154 to 156 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 206:
Line 3, after ("works") insert ("and, in Scotland, road works").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on the way in which he has dealt with this Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: MIDDLE EAST BAN
  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: MIDDLE EAST BAN
  UN RESOLUTIONS ON KUWAIT: DURATION
  UN RESOLUTIONS ON KUWAIT: DURATION
  ARMS TRADE: INTERNATIONAL CONTROL
  ARMS TRADE: INTERNATIONAL CONTROL
  ISRAEL AND IRAQ: ALLEGED NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
  ISRAEL AND IRAQ: ALLEGED NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMMES
  PAKISTAN: NUCLEAR PROGRAMME
  PAKISTAN: NUCLEAR PROGRAMME
  MIDDLE EAST SECURITY REGIME PROPOSAL
  MIDDLE EAST SECURITY REGIME PROPOSAL
  EMPLOYMENT REHABILITATION
  EMPLOYMENT REHABILITATION
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROPOSALS: MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROPOSALS: MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS