Sitting of 18 December 1990

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

  STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Self-governing Hospitals
    1. Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the views of Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte commissioned by his Department on the self-governing trust implications from St. James's hospital, Leeds and Leeds general infirmary; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): No, Sir. The appraisals are confidential documents prepared to help inform my assessment of proposed national health service trusts.
    Mr. Battle: That answer is most disappointing because the budget submissions from Leeds general infirmary and St. James's are based on massive underestimates of inflation and on land sales and a large increase in private beds, and it is widely believed that a third of the applicants for self-governing trust status are already massively overspending on their capital budgets. Why cannot the Department make available to the House a full appraisal including all the financial facts, so that the Government can be fully publicly accountable for budget decisions in this crucial area?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are fully accountable and I stand accountable to the House. A range of different advice was offered to us and there would be no more point in publishing the bits that the hon. Gentleman wants than there would any other bits. They were my decisions, taken against the background of the information available to me.
    Mr. Batiste: But is not the reality that those two great hospitals, St. James's and Leeds general infirmary, are among the largest in Europe and that the only way in which they can fulfil their potential and deliver the best service to their patients—which after all, is what it is all about—is by stripping away excessive layers of bureaucracy? In today's world, is not self-governing status within the NHS the best way of achieving what really matters, which is patient care?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend knows these hospitals well and he puts his finger on the fundamental point.
    138
    Many of the people who object to the return of those hospitals to management from within the hospital probably objected when the bureaucratic system was set up from which they are now escaping.

    Family Health Service
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to review the annual budgeting system of family health service authorities.
    The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): From next year, it will be for regional health authorities to determine the allocations which are given to family health services authorities and to ensure that they have adequate internal financial arrangements.
    Mr. French: I accept in principle the idea of annual budgeting by family health services authorities, but does my hon. Friend accept that the establishment of new doctors' surgeries, particularly in urban areas, requires some co-ordination between the purchase of land and the design and construction of buildings? Does not a rigid annual system with a strict limit on the 12-month budgeting period work to the detriment of the creation of new surgeries?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has a longstanding constituency interest in the arrangements for distributing the substantial resources for the premises improvement scheme. More than £6 million was spent last year on such schemes in his family health services area and he will know that 67 of the 87 practices there have benefited. However, it is important to continue to ensure that the vast resources put into practitioner services are properly and effectively distributed. If there are aspects that we can look at more carefully, we shall certainly do so.
    Mr. Kennedy: Given the significant contractual arrangements in the family doctor service, particularly during the past year or 18 months, and the anxiety that was expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the likely impact of some of those changes on employment prospects for female general practitioners, what evidence does the Minister have of the continuing employment on a part-time or full-time basis of female general practitioners?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I share his concern that we should continue to use women doctors in the NHS as well as we can. Half the medical students now are female and they should have an important part to play. The general practitioner's contract has meant that the specialties that many women doctors traditionally took up are particularly popular. We are watching the way in which women doctors are used. For the first time they can be employed as part-time principals, but they have expressed concern about the way in which they are likely to be treated by some male principals—[Interruption.] I have regular meetings with the organisations representing women doctors to ensure that we do not need to issue further guidance and that their skills are being fully used. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Could these Christmas greetings below the Gangway be exchanged outside the Chamber?

    NHS Trusts
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in publishing the budgets of national health service trusts.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): There are no plans to publish NHS trust budgets.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I fully accept my hon. Friend's comments. He may be interested to learn that, owing to the illegibility of my profession's handwriting, what should have appeared as "publicising benefits" has appeared on the Order Paper as "publishing budgets". Despite that, will he confirm that he will encourage national health service trusts to apply some of their budgets to promoting the benefits of NHS trusts to our constituents, notwithstanding the pessimism of my trade union, the British Medical Association?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend draws attention to one of the benefits of computerising prescriptions—they will in future be more legible. He is also right to stress the importance to patients of the improvements that come from trusts. The Kingston Hospital Trust, which serves my hon. Friend's constituency, was recently approved by my right hon. Friend. It promises to set specific waiting times for patients, to open evening and weekend clinics where there is substantial demand and to set down and follow discharge procedures so that GPs are fully involved in patient discharges. Those are the sort of improvements in the quality of service that can come from an imaginatively run trust.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Although the Minister has made it clear today that he will not publish NHS trust budgets, will he make public the full costs of wining and dining those concerned with the opting-out process? Can he justify the expenditure of £10,000 last Tuesday night on a Banqueting house booze-up for those concerned with opting out at a time when a health authority such as Wakefield has had to close 100 beds because of a lack of Government funding?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asks a question and then establishes that it would be otiose to answer it because he already knows the answer. What is important is to establish the benefits that come from improving the management of NHS hospitals through their establishment as trusts. The accountability that matters is accountability to patients through the contracting system and the improvement in quality of service that it will provide.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend underline the point that, whether it is benefits or budgets, the role of the Audit Commission has been significantly enhanced by the National Health Service and Community Care Act? Will he ensure that the Department gives every possible support to the work of the Audit Commission, which does its best to ensure the best value for money for patients from the much-enhanced sums that we are now spending on the health service?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. The Audit Commission has an important part to play in drawing attention to the opportunities, through more effective
    140
    management, to obtain better value for money for the taxpayer and a better quality of health for the patient. That should be the objective of us all.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Minister aware that there is some anxiety among social workers that there may not be adequate provision in national health service trust hospitals for social workers, bearing in mind the fact that we are trying to move people into the community and that social workers are employed by local authorities? Is he satisfied that the budgets provide adequately for such social services?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am satisfied that the contracting system provides the mechanism whereby district health authorities will be able to provide the seamless robe that is essential to proper health and social care, to ensure that an individual benefits first from health care, then from community care and then from social care support when appropriate. The contracting system provides the mechanism for ensuring that all that is in place.

    Health Inequalities
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to reduce health inequalities.
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is a fundamental objective of our national health service reforms to give patients, wherever they live in the United Kingdom and regardless of how well off they are, better health care and greater choice.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that it is now 10 years since the Black committee report on inequalities in health? Can he explain why, in those 10 years, inequalities in health have got worse instead of better? Is not that a damning indictment of the abject failure of the Government to tackle the problems?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The thing to remember is that everyone's health has got better in the past 10 years, as it did in the previous 10 years. Life expectancy has increased by about two years for everyone. I am not going to say that our Government have abolished inequalities in health care any more than the Labour Government did when they were in power. However, we are introducing some powerful new mechanisms that will help. For example, the GP contract, although it has been unpopular with some GPs, is raising the level of immunology—for example, child immunology—in the places where it was worst. When Opposition Members say that they are going to repeal that contract, will they be satisfied with lowering the levels of child immunology again?
    Dame Jill Knight: My right hon. Friend may have omitted to mention another important part of the reduction in inequalities with regard to the contract, as elderly people now have regular checks, which was not previously the case. Can he give us any information about that?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. That, too, is an important weapon to help us move away from those problems, which occur throughout the world. Another relevant matter is that, under the new financial system, health districts will for the first time have the duty to

    141
    produce a proper health plan for their area, taking into account the problems of social deprivation that they may face. That should also help.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that under the health plan, school children in Strathclyde are receiving letters telling them that they will no longer get eye tests in school and that they will have to go to hospital? Is that the type of planning that he wishes to see?
    Mr. Waldegrave: What I am aware of—although I hope that I do not embarrass my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland by saying this—is that the situation in Scotland at least shows that there is no simple connection between resources and health, because Scotland spends rather more than we do in England per head, but has no better health statistics.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the millions and millions that the Government have rightly put into the national health service, regional and local health authorities are at best muscle-bound and at worst insensitive in much of their public relations? Will he bear that in mind and try to do something about it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is important that health districts and regions should have clearly designated spokesmen to answer questions that it is legitimate for people to ask them. I think that I should be criticised in the House if I encouraged them to launch large public relations campaigns. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. There must always be a clear contact point for inquiries from the public at district and regional level.

    Self-governing Hospitals
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received over self-governing hospitals.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have received many representations about national health service trusts.
    Mr. Winnick: I can well imagine it. Is it of no concern to the Government that there is no public support for these substantial changes? For example, in my borough, at the district general hospital, there is overwhelming opposition to what is being proposed. Why are the Government pursuing this path of Thatcherite dogma, instead of dealing with the financial crisis in the health service? It would be far better to deal with the financial crisis, which is due to underfunding, than to gamble with people's health by making unnecessary changes.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I spent a large part of yesterday at the Royal Free hospital, where I met many people—doctors, nurses and health service workers—who are strongly in favour of the changes. They may all have been passionate Thatcherites, but I am not sure that they were. Some may even have voted for the Labour party. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that there is growing support. One should consider the hon. Gentleman's area, where the National Union of Public Employees sent out 2,700 ballot forms. Four hundred came back and 100 were actually in favour of the trust—I suppose that they went to the wrong people. It is really not very serious.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When considering the representations made to him by hospitals or authorities
    142
    that want to opt out and become self-governing trusts within the national health service, does my right hon. Friend give more weight to the views of members of the area health authorities, consultants and other doctors, nurses, paramedics, other staff and patients, or to those of the rather remote chairmen of the regional health authorities?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I should probably attach the most weight to the quality of the submission made by the hospital or other unit in question. Those are the people who know most about a hospital and whose future rests with it. If they present good proposals—as they did this year—it is principally to those proposals that we respond, although we also take advice from the districts and regions.
    Mr. Ashton: Although the Secretary of State keeps saying that there will be consultation, he never announces what sort of consultation it will be and with whom it will take place. Who will he consult before the trusts are set up—the patients, the staff or the public? If he is not satisfied with the NUPE ballot, why does not he organise a ballot himself? Is he aware that no consultation has taken place with Bassetlaw hospital, except that which I have tried to organise, with no help at all?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Ballots are not at all the right way to improve the system of management in a great service such as the national health service. We have been trying to carry out the statutory duties imposed on us by the Act that was passed earlier this year and, above all—as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—to study the representations made to us by the hospitals themselves.
    Mr. Paice: Following the undoubted success of hospital trusts, will my right hon. Friend find a mechanism whereby hospitals that are not currently part of the NHS—for instance, former military hospitals such as the one in my constituency from which the RAF is to withdraw—can become independent trusts within the NHS and thus build on the success of this initiative?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I know the hospital to which my hon. Friend refers very well; indeed, I talked about it to the regional chairman and officers when I was in Cambridge last Friday. I am not sure that the establishment of a trust is the most likely solution in that instance, but the regional authority is willing to consider any financial proposals that make sense and could save the hospital.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Can we tempt the Secretary of State to tell us something about the independent representations that he commissioned from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte? Can he confirm that that organisation concluded that only 14 of the 56 applications that he approved were financially sound? If that was not its conclusion, why does the right hon. Gentleman keep refusing to publish its report? Should not the public have the right to know the figures and should not Parliament have the right to debate them?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the nature of the process. During the summer, Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte and many other advisers produced a variety of advice, much of which was passed back to the trust units and altered in the course of dialogue

    143
    with them. It is as futile to ask for that particular piece of paper as it is to ask for thousands of others that were made available to me.

    Prestwich Hospital
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet the chairman of the North West regional health authority to discuss the future of Prestwich hospital.
    Mr. Dorrell: The future development of hospital facilities at Prestwich hospital is a matter for the local health authority.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread opposition among my constituents to plans to develop a hypermarket on part of the hospital site? Will he join me in urging the chairman of the regional authority to tell his counterpart in Salford to withdraw the plan and thus save my constituents from serious environmental and commercial damage?
    Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend knows, this is a planning matter that falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Nevertheless, I cannot be blind to the fact that the £12·5 million that is in prospect if the planning proposal goes ahead would allow for a £6·5 million investment in new regional mental illness facilities on the Prestwich site and a further £6 million to improve provision for the mentally ill in the community. At a time when we are constantly—and rightly—pressed to provide investment to improve facilities for the mentally ill, that is a major advantage to which, as I have said, I cannot be blind.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that that hospital in Prestwich and other hospitals throughout the north-west region and Cumbria send patients to St. Paul's eye hospital in Liverpool for jag laser treatment? Is he further aware that that hospital is also under threat and that it is causing deep concern throughout the north-west? Will he take some action to ensure that people in Liverpool, my constituents and people throughout the region are satisfied about the future of those services?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. The "threat" in Prestwich is that there should be a £12·5 million investment programme to improve hospital facilities and facilities for care in the community to provide for the mentally ill. That is the sort of threat that we want to see to develop an improving health service for all patients in the health service and especially, in this context, for the mentally ill.

    Out-patient Departments
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives have been or are being undertaken to improve out-patient departments.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We are committed to improving out-patient departments. We have recently issued advice on the physical environment, questions of skill mix and on appointment systems to reduce waiting times at out-patient departments. In addition, we are
    144
    funding 10 demonstration projects as part of our quality initiative, addressed particularly to out-patient departments.
    Mr. Stevens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and for the initiatives that have been taken to improve out-patient facilities. The improvements that have been made over the years in North Warwickshire district health authority are very much appreciated. How many new out-patient attendances were there in 1979 and how does that figure compare with those today?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There has been a considerable increase in the number of people coming to out-patient departments. There were 36 million out-patient attendances last year, which is 7 per cent. higher than in 1979. In my hon. Friend's health authority, the figures have increased by 20 per cent. over the past four years.
    Mr. Cousins: What out-patient facilities does the Minister plan for the over-85s? Six old people's homes have closed in Newcastle as a result of poll tax capping and two long-stay geriatric hospitals are closing as a result of hospital cuts, with the inmates and patients being put up for auction. Clearly, we shall need a lot more facilities at out-patient departments in hospitals to deal with the consequences of that, so what plans does the Minister have?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know that he has a first-rate health authority in Newcastle which is addressing precisely those problems. Its work on implementing community care is going very well. The point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a moment ago about the need for general practitioners to offer their patients who are over 75 an annual visit to check on their welfare and well-being will also help to improve the quality of care. We are seeing improved services for the elderly. Our community care proposals will challenge health and local authorities to work together successfully to ensure that there is comprehensive and integrated cover.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Has not the treatment of out-patients improved immeasurably over the past 10 years? Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of out-patients being treated at the moment in Leicester is at a record level?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I think that I can, almost without doubt, confirm the Leicestershire figure, but my hon. Friend will understand that I shall write to him if I am wrong. Out-patient departments are the interface between community services, general practitioners and hospitals. We are concerned that a recent survey found that 15 per cent. of people with out-patient appointments failed to show up in one area. We must be sure that our appointment systems are effective and that people are well treated when they reach the out-patient departments. We must also ensure that we are making proper use of skill mix and that the quality of the environment and experience is as good as it can be. We shall issue further advice to health authorities in the new year on the basis of the lessons that we have learnt from the first six demonstration projects.

    Psychiatric Patients
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce Her Majesty's Government's policies for introducing assessment for patients leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals and going into the community.
    Mr. Dorrell: Guidance on the introduction of assessment for patients leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals was issued to health and local authorities on 10 September.
    Mr. Clarke: In view of the great distress that has been caused to many patients who are leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals supposedly to go into community care, which simply does not exist, when precisely will the Government implement section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? Does the Minister recall that the former Secretary of State for Health announced, after over three years of negotiations with local councils, that the Government's National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and their provisions for community care transcended section 7, and that once that had been monitored, the Government would decide what they were going to do? Now that the Government have abandoned their proposals for community care until 1993, what will happen to the patients? Is that community care in the 1990s, or is it saying to those patients, "Look forward to cardboard homes and cardboard hopes"?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We have not abandoned community care; we are committed to implementing it. Furthermore, we are committed to implementing community care for mentally ill people on an accelerated timetable. The mental illness specific grant will make available £30 million of expenditure from next April. Capital approvals to local authorities will make available a further £10 million from next April. The capital loans fund has provided £10 million this year to invest in reprovision for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people. The initiative that I announced in July for homeless mentally ill people provides £5 million for that client group. Approximately £55 million has been made available by the Government in the current year to invest in improving the facilities available to treat mentally ill people in the community.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome the Government's proposals for improved assessment of people leaving long-term psychiatric hospitals and, more important, the provision of a key worker for each patient to co-ordinate the services available to him, but will the Government support and promote the additional voluntary service of Citizens Advocacy, a branch of which is in my constituency, which provides a friend—not a professional—to help formerly mentally ill or mentally handicapped people reintegrate into the community?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to an interesting and useful contribution to care for mentally ill people. I welcome the initiative that he referred to and the opportunities that it represents. The care programme approach that I announced on 10 September provides, for the first time, an ordered framework to assess the needs of
    146
    each mentally ill individual and to ensure that they are met in the community. My hon. Friend referred to advocacy schemes, which have a part to play in that process.
    Mr. Rooker: Does not the Minister appreciate that it is the belief of millions of carers and the cared-for that. the Government have abandoned their community care programme? Sticking to the narrow confines of the question, does the Minister accept that the guidance for the assessment must be much wider than that which is published? How does it meet, for example, the criticism of the MIND survey, which mentioned the lack of choice and dignity, the lack of keys and the lack of the chance to keep pets? The survey in the west midlands found that virtually no social activity is offered in the private residential sector. How can it meet the problems that are caused by the lack of co-ordination between health authorities, social service departments and the planning authorities? In our large cities, hostels for mentally ill and mentally handicapped people are located next to another hostel, across the road from another hostel or round the corner from another hostel. Care in a community of hostels is not what patients or their families want.
    Mr. Dorrell: It may be true that there is a belief in the field that community care has been abandoned, but it is quite simply wrong. When it has repeatedly been stated to be wrong, it does no one any good for the hon. Gentleman to repeat it from the Dispatch Box. As regards the suggestion that the care programme approach is too narrow, that was out to consultation throughout most of the summer, which offered an opportunity for those in the field to argue for the widening that the hon. Gentleman advocated. He did not do so and most of the people in the field did not do so at that time. The guidance that we published on 10 September represents the first structured attempt to ensure that the needs of an individual mentally ill person are assessed and that effective machinery is put in place to support that individual in the community.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend carefully consider respite care for the relatives or friends of psychiatric patients who return home? As well as the carers of psychiatric patients, many other carers need a break and we must cater for their needs in future programmes.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We recognise that respite care is an important part of a proper programme for community care for psychiatric patients and we shall ensure that provision is made.

    Stepping Hill Hospital, Stockport
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will visit Stepping Hill hospital, Stockport to discuss staffing levels.
    Mr. Dorrell: I have no plans to visit Stepping Hill hospital. Staffing levels in hospitals are a matter for local decision.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Graham Pink on having the courage to describe so movingly in The Guardian and on television the major problems faced in Stepping Hill on the night shift on geriatric wards? Will the hon. Gentleman condemn the

    147
    district health authority for suspending Mr. Pink for his whistle-blowing activities rather than solving the problems at that hospital? Does he agree that that is deplorable?
    Mr. Dorrell: No, Sir. I shall not join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Mr. Pink. The trouble with Mr. Pink's allegations is that he does not have the support of his colleagues, the clinicians in the hospital or the health authority's chief nursing officer; nor can it be established on any of the published criteria that his allegations are justified.
    Mr. Favell: The best way to improve hospital services in Stockport is to amalgamate Stockport infirmary with Stepping Hill hospital, which are both in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that the consultant in charge of the accident and emergency department at the infirmary has been pushing for that amalgamation for years, yet it is opposed by the Labour party because of cynical, short-term opportunism? The Labour party is prepared to put lives at risk to buy short-term popularity. At Stockport infirmary there is no blood bank or intensive care unit and there are facilities to deal only with broken bones and ear, nose and throat problems. Unless a person suffers from such problems, he has to be taken by ambulance to Stepping Hill hospital, down one of the busiest roads in the north of England. That is the Labour party's wish.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully, but he is not quite right in every detail. Although the Labour party here opposes amalgamation, the National Union of Public Employees supports it, so my hon. Friend has support from a wider section of the community than he might have expected. He is right to draw attention to the improvement that can come from the investment programme to which he referred. I hope that it will be possible to provide for that within a reasonable time scale.

    Health Service Financing
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to meet the chairman of the National Association of Health Authorities to discuss the financing of the health service.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I look forward to meeting him on 31 January when I shall speak at his association's annual reception. I am sure that we shall discuss financial matters there.
    Mr. Hayes: Is my right hon. Friend greatly encouraged by the warm welcome with which his speech last week was received by the National Association of Health Authorities and the other caring professions? Coupled with the clear commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to cut junior doctors' working hours, does my right hon. Friend believe that that shows without doubt that the Government believe in a health service for everyone, financed primarily out of taxation and free at the point of delivery?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should like to take the opportunity provided by his question to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and to her including Dr. Diana
    148
    Walford and Dr. Stephen Hunter, who have achieved what will turn out to be an historic breakthrough on the long-standing matter of junior doctors' hours.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Secretary of State launch an urgent investigation into the funding crisis gripping the national health service in Bradford? Does he understand that, because of that cash crisis, there is widespread dismay at the fact that the Bradford NHS trust has gone ahead and still greater dismay at the fact that the chairman is a millionaire business man from Wakefield who knows nothing about the NHS in Bradford and still less about the health care needs of the people of Bradford?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is astonishing that the Labour party should regret the fact that some of the best business men want to give their skills to the health service. That action will benefit the people of Bradford and that principle will benefit us all more widely.
    Mr. Walden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although many Conservative Members are entirely behind the reforms that were introduced by his predecessor and which he carried through, in several areas—not least the Aylesbury Vale health authority and Stoke Mandeville hospital—a serious situation is developing as the hospital seeks to make ends meet before the new regime comes in next spring? As a result, there have been serious cuts in the number of operations performed. Will my right hon. Friend look at the overall costs of writing off the debts of those areas that are in serious financial difficulty, before the new regime comes in next spring, so that they can start with a clean slate?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is understood that some of the London districts will not have to remove their deficits before the beginning of the new system. However, it would be a bad managerial signal to allow those that have overspent their budgets again to pre-empt resources that should be available to the whole of the health service, including those that have achieved their budgets.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Hon. Members of all parties have pointed out to the Secretary of State the immense pressure on health authorities from the obligation to remove their deficits. May I remind him that three years ago this week, one of his predecessors found an extra £100 million for a similar crisis in the hospital service? As beds are now closing faster than they did three years ago and as waiting lists are now longer than they were three years ago, why cannot the Secretary of State do the same? Why cannot the Government, who have written off the debts of every privatised industry, now write off the deficits of our hospitals?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it has been a long-standing objective to bring districts back into balance. That is the right thing to do and we shall continue to do it, although, as I said, there will be some flexibility in London. That remains the position.

    Transplants
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advances have been made in transplant treatments in the last 11 years.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Over the past 11 years, there have been unprecedented advances in the number of organs

    149
    transplanted, in the development of new forms of transplant and in improving the results of transplants. The Government remain wholly committed to the organ transplant programme.
    Mr. Dunn: Although I acknowledge that the United Kingdom's record on transplants is excellent, will the Secretary of State confirm the steps being taken by his Department to overcome the shortage in the supply of donor organs?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The main thing that the House can do is to redouble its appeals to people to carry donor cards. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to what has been done. It is an example of a wholly new health service activity—an almost completely new activity—in the past 10 years. There was virtually none of this under the previous Labour Government, which shows the development of services that we have been able to achieve.
    Mr. Galbraith: It will come as a disappointment to the House that the Government's only contribution to increasing the number of donor organs is to increase the number of donor cards carried by individuals. Although that is successful to a limited extent, it is not proving sufficient to deal with the continuing problem of the shortage of donor organs. Have the Government no other plans to increase the number of donor organs available for transplantation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman quite likely knows, various other matters are under consideration. The United Kingdom transplant service, which is funded centrally from my Department, will continue to receive our support. We have considered alternative schemes, such as the opting-out proposal, which has been raised in some European countries. It has not found much favour with us and, from the expression on the hon. Gentleman's face, it does not find much favour with him.

    Speech Therapy
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his plans for the future of the speech therapy profession.
    Mr. Virginia Bottomley: Speech therapy services have expanded and developed considerably over the past 10 years. We are working with the profession on plans for further improvements.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister acknowledge that, despite those efforts, there is still a chronic shortage of properly qualified speech therapists to treat communication-handicapped patients within the health service? Will she further acknowledge that urgent action is needed to increase the recruitment and remuneration in this valuable service and that the way forward is not to establish a tier of partially trained therapists acting as fully trained therapists within the service, but to put all the effort behind fully and properly qualified speech therapists?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There has been an 82 per cent. increase in qualified speech therapists over the past 10 years and they are better paid than they used to be. However, I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point that there are rising expectations of the number of tasks that speech therapists can rightly perform. It is important to consider the skill mix and to ensure that qualified speech therapists are used
    150
    for the tasks for which their skills are necessary. We are also carrying forward plans for clinical audit. We have regular discussions with the College of Speech Therapists and we will continue to consider all the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Jessel: In view of the standard of some of their speeches, will my hon. Friend provide speech therapy for the Labour party? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: That is a little bit wide.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall ask the Department's therapy officer to look at that aspect.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further steps the Government intend to take to reduce hospital waiting lists.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The NHS Management Executive is to agree tough targets for the reduction of long waits with all 14 regional health authorities. We are also continuing the special waiting list fund to help health authorities reduce the number of patients who wait excessively.
    Mr. Wigley: As the ENT in-patient waiting list in my area is 98 weeks and worsening, whereas ophthalmology, which has been given additional resources, has a reducing waiting list, will the Minister accept the general thesis that if more resources were given to hospitals, the waiting lists would lessen?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is on the Treasury Bench and I know that he will note the hon. Gentleman's points. The numbers waiting for a long time have reduced. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that 50 per cent. of hospital admissions are immediate. The average wait for those who come in off the waiting list is six weeks and we have seen great progress on the numbers who have to wait for over a year. We have made it clear that we want to take more time and care over reducing waiting times. At a time of increasing activity, it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman not to recognise the progress that is being made.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
    Ms. Quin: Can the Prime Minister explain how the creation of hereditary baronetcies fits in with his idea of the classless society?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot ask about the royal prerogative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is a long convention and it is outside our rules. The hon. Lady must try a different tack.
    Ms. Quin: Is it true that the Prime Minister recommended the creation of a hereditary baronetcy? If that is the case—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just as bad.
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that we do not bring the royal family into our discussions here.—[Interruption.]
    Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is absolutely disgraceful behaviour. The House knows the rules about this.
    Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend share the enthusiasm of Conservative Members for the European Community's decision to lift sanctions against new investment in South Africa? Does he share my belief that only through that sort of investment can we bring peace and harmony to South Africa? Does he also share the belief of Oliver Tambo, expressed in his statement at the weekend, that the only people who wish to maintain comprehensive sanctions against South Africa are extreme elements of the African National Congress and the British Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: The European Council's agreement over the weekend to lift the ban on new investment in South Africa was a positive step for which Britain has been pressing for some time. I hope that other Governments will soon follow the European Community's example. The very great changes that we have seen in South Africa in recent years have been welcome. In due course, I hope that they will be able to continue and that we will be able properly to welcome South Africa back wholeheartedly into the African and world community.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the number of homes being built in Britain is at a lower level than at any time since the first world war?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that over the recent few years more people have moved into home ownership and we have had a higher quality and standard of housing than ever before.
    Mr. Kinnock: I wonder why the Prime Minister is refusing to answer a plain question. I hear what he says, but, as the Government have cut £6 billion from housing investment and imposed the highest mortgage rates in all of history, does he not realise that the Government are responsible for not only the loss of homes but vastly increased homelessness?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will find that his facts are incorrect. On the quality, nature and quantity of housing, I am happy to match the record of this Government against that of any previous Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister then acknowledge, first, that during the time that he has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Chancellor of the Exchequer and now Prime Minister, the Government have made huge cuts in housing budgets? Will he confirm that under this
    152
    Government mortgage rates have been higher for longer than ever before and that while the Government have halved housing investment they have doubled homelessness?
    The Prime Minister: In his list the right hon. Gentleman wholly overlooks the remarkable changes made to the voluntary housing movement, housing associations and action on homelessness.
    Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Bundesbank, Herr Pail, said the other day that interest rates should be set according to monetary conditions and should not be used to affect the exchange rate? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends agree with that view and that if we use interest rates to maintain the exchange rate, we are likely to have a wider and deeper recession than we need to control inflation?
    The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a clear relationship between interest rate and exchange rate policy. My right hon. Friend referred to the governor of the Bundesbank. The deutschmark is also part of the exchange rate mechanism and Germany has done rather well as a result of that.
    Mr. Ashdown: Did the Prime Minister read the comments made at the weekend by the Governor of the Bank of England? He said that the Prime Minister's decision, when Chancellor, to cut interest rates in advance of the Tory party conference meant that his party gained a political dividend too early, for which jobs and industry are now paying.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should read all of what the Governor said. He made it clear that the matter was fully discussed with him and that a joint decision was reached.
    Sir Marcus Fox: Setting aside the argument that shops should obey the law—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that is a very good start.
    Sir Marcus Fox: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that there is a huge demand among shoppers and traders alike and an urgent need to allow people to shop on Sundays? Does he agree that the present law should be reformed?
    The Prime Minister: The present law on Sunday trading is widely felt to be unsatisfactory, as my hon. Friend made clear. We tried to reform the law, but on that occasion our proposals did not find favour with the House. I can well understand the impatience of hon. Members about the state of the Sunday trading law.
    Hon. Members: Obey the law.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: A great deal of the Sunday trading law is bizarre and the time may well be approaching when the Sunday observance lobby should sit down with the r: tail trade to see whether an acceptable compromise can be reached. As the House knows, there is an acceptable law in Scotland which has not wrecked the special significance of Sunday. I should welcome such a law in England.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Prime Minister recognise at this time of seasonal goodwill the mortgage misery of millions of people who are paying considerably more than would otherwise be the case because of the Government's financial mismanagement during the past few years? Does he recognise that in the north-west an average mortgage of £34,800 is costing £110 a month more than it would have done two and a half years ago?
    The Prime Minister: I understand clearly the problems faced by many people with high mortgage rates. The underlying necessity is to get the inflation rate down, and interest rate policy is a necessary part of that.
    Mr. Andrew Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every week many thousands of British animals are sent to antiquated European slaughterhouses and that they arrive hungary and thirsty, battered and damaged? Will he please take steps to stop this needless cruelty to and suffering of animals?
    The Prime Minister: A great deal of that is unattractive. There are laws covering the circumstances in which such exports take place and I shall examine them personally, as my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: What comfort can the Prime Minister give to my 89-year-old constituent, Mrs. Phyllis Smith, who, like thousands of other elderly people who live in rest homes, can no longer get free incontinence aids from the national health service? What would he advise her to do with bills for £179, such as this one, when she is on income support and cannot afford to buy these aids which are basic essentials of human dignity?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is as aware as anyone in the House that both the general level of provision and the specific level of income support are higher today than at any previous time.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his calm and intelligent approach to the European summit and the negotiations has aroused widespread admiration in my constituency and across the country? My constituents recognise, as he recognises, that we have everything to gain from the negotiations, working out together with our European partners solutions to the many problems that face the European Community.
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly grateful to my hon. Friend. It is clear within the EC that on some matters we have a distinct view and we shall sustain it. On those occasions we shall in future, as so often in the past, win the arguments.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: The Prime Minister has spoken of creating a classless society. What sort of classless society will it be if, as forecast, unemployment once again goes beyond the 2 million mark? Why does he not at least take the advice of the Confederation of British Industry and reduce interest rates without delay?
    The Prime Minister: It is because we are determined to bring inflation down and keep it down, not to bring it down artificially at the risk of a greater problem later.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stewart: Recently, the chairman of British Coal announced record financial profits—the best for 13 years. Recently, our miners produced an all-time productivity record of more than 5 tonnes per man-shift. Recently, the mineworkers' pension scheme announced an increase in pensions of more than 15 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate all those people on making those records attainable?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to do so. British Coal and its work force deserve great credit for their achievements, particularly for their recent record level of productivity. It will provide a firm foundation for the future of the coal industry.
    Mr. Mallon: Nobody can fail to have been impressed by the Prime Minister's stated conviction that everyone in this country has a right to his or her place in the sun and to equal opportunity. As we approach Christmas, will the right hon. Gentleman ponder on the plight of the Birmingham Six, who face their 16th year in prison for a crime that many believe they have not committed? When he ponders on that, will he join with me in my anger at the words of an Appeal Court judge yesterday—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Mallon: —when he said—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that case is sub judice.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, a date is fixed for the hearing and in advance of that there is no more I can say at the moment.
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Couchman: During his busy day, will my right hon. Friend contact the commander of the British Forces in the Gulf and convey to him the best wishes and prayers of hon. Members in all parts of the House for all our troops as we rise for Christmas? Will he assure General de la Billiêre that our hopes remain high that Saddam Hussein will withdraw his forces from Kuwait without the need for further bloodshed?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in those wishes. We owe a tremendous debt to our forces in the Gulf and I am sure that, without exception, we wish them a happy Christmas. I look forward to going out to visit them very shortly after Christmas.
    As for the solution of the Gulf crisis, that rests squarely with Saddam Hussein. Time is running out for him. The international community has made it clear that force will be used if Iraq has not withdrawn totally and unconditionally from Kuwait by 15 January. I hope that Saddam Hussein will take that very seriously indeed.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: As the Government's economic policy is leading to only one consequence, which is higher
    156
    unemployment, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that more money is made available under the revenue support grant settlement for areas such as mine, where unemployment is already at double national average levels? Will he ensure that more money is made available in January by that means to alleviate some of the problems of that degree of unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: The consequence of economic management next year will be lower inflation and renewed growth. My right hon. Friend will make a revenue support grant statement in due course.
    Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after the statement.

European Council (Rome)
3.32 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council in Rome on 13 and 14 December, which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Council's conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House.
After the Council itself, I attended a formal joint opening session of the intergovernmental conferences on political union and on economic and monetary union. That was followed by a short working session of each conference, attended respectively by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those meetings were mainly formal and procedural. The conference will start in earnest in January.
Five main subjects were dealt with by the European Council, the first being political union. On that, the Council reached agreement on a long list of items which are to be considered—and that is the operative word—at the intergovernmental conference on political union. The list includes Britain's proposals for closer co-operation on foreign and security policy, better implementation of Community decisions, a role for national Parliaments in the affairs of the Community, better financial accountability and observance of the principle of subsidiarity. Other countries have also added items to the list. Some of them we welcome; others, frankly, are less palatable.
The key, so far as Britain is concerned, is that the issues have simply been put on the table for discussion. None are agreed. All are for consideration. The conclusions of the Council do not constrain or prejudge the intergovernmental conference's decisions, which have to be reached by unanimity. One of our principal objectives in Rome was thus satisfactorily achieved.
The second main item was assistance for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe. The Community's aim is to support the economic reforms which President Gorbachev and the Soviet Government are introducing, and to help the Soviet Union make proper use of its own resources. We therefore agreed to make available technical assistance to particular sectors of the Soviet economy, and notably to food distribution. We also endorsed the aim of energy co-operation, in which Britain is particularly well placed to play a part.
To meet the Soviet Union's short-term needs, the Community will provide substantial food aid. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I stressed that there should be guarantees that the food actually reaches those for whom it is intended, and does not undermine attempts to make Soviet agriculture more responsive to the market. Those points are reflected in the Council's conclusions.
The Council also recognised the particular difficulties being experienced by eastern European countries as they make the transition to democracy and a market economy, while coping simultaneously with sharp increases in oil prices and the change to hard-currency trading. The Community will contribute, along with other western countries and the international financial institutions, to meeting their financial requirements. It will also provide emergency aid to Bulgaria and Romania, in the form of food and medicines.
Thirdly, the Council discussed the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations. It called on all parties to
158
show the necessary political will to reach a satisfactory agreement, and asked the Commission, as the Community's negotiator, to be in touch with other participants, in order to resolve remaining problems. That refers to agriculture in particular.
We thus achieved another of our main objectives—to ensure that Heads of Government dealt fully with the difficulties in the GATT negotiations and gave a strong signal of the Community's resolve to see a successful outcome. I hope other countries will show themselves no less willing to make progress.
Fourthly, the Council dealt with the situation in the Gulf, and agreed an admirably firm statement. That shows the Community as firmly committed as ever to ensuring Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of the legitimate Government. The statement makes particular reference to Security Council resolution 678, which envisages the possible use of force if attempts to resolve matters peacefully have not succeeded by 15 January. The Council's discussions made it clear that the Twelve do not accept any linkage whatsoever between Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait and progress on other middle eastern issues. Saddam Hussein must not gain from his agression.
Lastly, the Council welcomed the changes which President de Klerk has, with Mr. Mandela, brought about in South Africa. It also decided to lift with immediate effect the voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa. That is a step which Britain has been urging for many months. I know the decision will be most welcome to Conservative Members. The Community is committed to lift other restrictive measures as soon as the South African Government take certain additional steps, which they have already promised to do. I underline the importance of that move by the Community, which will encourage further reform and political progress in South Africa. I hope that Europe's example will rapidly be followed by others.
For the sake of completeness, I should make two further points. First, the European Council reaffirmed its determination to complete the single market on time. Secondly, the Council did not discuss economic and monetary union on this occasion. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that we shall very shortly table draft treaty amendments to give effect to Britain's proposals for a hard ecu and a European monetary fund.
The Council was marked by a positive and co-operative spirit—despite some subsequent remarks—and by a willingness on the part of all member states to work for solutions which will enable us to go forward as Twelve. There is no doubt that there will be difficult discussions ahead in both the intergovernmental conferences: it would be foolish to deny that, for it is self-evidently true. But the Government's aim will be to work for agreements which are acceptable to this House, and match both Britain's interests and those of Europe as a whole. We made a good start to that end in Rome.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I welcome in particular the summit decisions to provide food aid for the Soviet Union and to take initiatives in creating more effective long-term economic and political relations between the European

159
Community and the Soviet Union, and to build new and closer relations with the recently freed countries of eastern and central Europe.
We further welcome the Council's declaration of continued further commitment to full implementation of all United Nations Security Council resolutions to secure the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait.
There is widespread concern about the failure of the GATT round, so can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he felt that the summit discussions that he has just reported were substantial, and whether he thinks that they will lead to any significant reforms of the common agricultural policy?
The change in the tone of the Government's approach that was evident at the summit is welcome. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what changes of substance there have been in the Government's position? Does the Prime Minister continue in his opposition to the extension of majority voting to those decisions where it would help to improve social policy and to raise environmental standards? The summit communiqué which the Prime Minister accepted, includes a commitment to press ahead with, and to speed up, the social charter action programme. Does the Prime Minister now support that charter, or will he continue the Government's outright opposition to it?
Does the Prime Minister consider that his proposals for the hard ecu are the quicker route to a single currency, as was said by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; or a possible route, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said; or an alternative to currency union, as was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In view of the fact that the Government have completed draft treaty amendments on economic and monetary union, will the Prime Minister make them available to the House before they are tabled at the intergovernmental conference?
Will the Prime Minister confirm that he withdrew all the reservations expressed by the Government at the last Rome summit in October, but that he also expressed the view at the latest summit that he intends to make no radical modifications to the Government's existing policy towards the European Community? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell the House exactly where he does stand? Or is he waiting to see how long he can sit on the fence, with pleasantry in place of policy?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his words about the agreements reached on food aid for the Soviet Union and for eastern Europe, and for his robust support of the Security Council resolutions on Kuwait.
I confirm that there were substantial talks on GATT between the Heads of Government, and that some considerable time was spent on them. There was a general acceptance of the importance of reaching agreement, and a willingness to do so. Our negotiators have clear instructions to use all the negotiating remit they have to reach an agreement—although there is expectation that that will require movement by others, as well as by the European Community.
The common agricultural policy is not directly related to the GATT discussions, but there was some discussion
160
about the way in which it is working at present, and some private thought that we may need to review it and to consider what changes need to be made.
So far as the substance of policy is concerned—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned qualified majority voting in particular—we are not persuaded that a case has been made for qualified majority voting. Clearly, we will have to examine what comes before us, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, at the moment, we are not persuaded that a case has yet been made.
On the social charter, what we have said—and what I acknowledged in the discussions that we have had—is that there is a social dimension to the European Community, not least in terms of employment, but that the provisions in the social charter are not generally provisions that we believe to be correct. Our present position on the social charter is as it was some months ago.
On economic and monetary union, the hard ecu remains—as it always has been—a possible route to economic and monetary union. That depends on it being driven by the market and on the choices of Governments, companies and individuals. As to speed, that of course depends on the individual choices exercised—if exercised—by those Governments, companies and individuals. But it is a potential and secure route without many of the risks that we think are attached to the alternatives before us.
I undertake to lay before the House the draft changes that we propose for economic and monetary union at the same time as we present them to our colleagues in Europe. When they are ready, we shall do that.
On our present and future position, we will resolutely support what we perceive to be the British interest in the Community, but we shall do that in the context of trying to build collectively with our partners a better Europe for all of us.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us, including a ten-minute Bill and opposed private business at 7 pm. I will allow questions on this important matter to continue until 4·30 pm. The number of hon. Members I am able to call will depend on the brevity of their questions.
Sir Bernard Braine: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his positive contribution to the discussions, but did he really get the impression that the Twelve are now back on track and are planning for the future of all democratic Europe? Was any real progress made in coordinating policies designed to bring the newly emancipated and long-oppressed countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary into genuine partnership with the rest of us?
The Prime Minister: There was discussion about that, and we hope that the preliminary steps towards the widening of Europe—the association agreements presently being examined—will come forward for agreement at an early date.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his performance in Rome and I welcome his decision to ditch all his predecessor's rhetoric and prejudice against Europe. But surely he realises that soft words will not hide the necessity for hard decisions yet to come. The difference that now isolates the Government from every other country in the EC is the difference between "could" and "will". He says that we could have a

161
single currency; they say that we will have a single currency. Surely we cannot allow Britain to be isolated from Europe on that matter. Does he not agree that it is time that Conservative Back Benchers began to realise that the change of style on Europe over the weekend will inevitably and logically lead to a change of substance on Europe in the months to come?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about there being hard decisions to come; I made the same point a few moments ago.
It is no longer the case that it is only the United Kingdom that has considerable reservations about the plan for economic and monetary union which is before the Community. Alternative plans are being brought forward by a number of other Community countries, and quite a few robust and worthwhile criticisms were made of plans which were previously unchallenged. The United Kingdom has for a long time set out its reservations about what has become known as the Delors plan, drafted by that committee, and they relate to matters concerning this House and to the economic circumstances under which any move to a single currency would be satisfactory. Those underlying economic circumstances are an unchanging reality which we shall continually bear in mind before any moves are made.
Mr. David Howell: My right hon. Friend has entered into the debate about the best form of European Community for the future with great skill and he deserves to be warmly congratulated. Does he agree, on political union, that it is not a matter of going slower or faster towards the so-called goal of a collectivist, centralist, federal European union, but of ensuring that we instead move towards a Europe which is based on proper constitutional principles of a looser confederal kind, and that that is the kind of Europe that will win many friends throughout the Community? Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has made an excellent start in winning some of those friends for a Europe of the future which meets the democratic principles in which we believe?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can confirm without equivocation that we remain opposed to federalism in the context of a federal European Government. Our concept of political union is clear: it is one of ever closer co-operation and working together between the member states of the Community while preserving their national parliaments, Governments and traditions. It is not a centralised European super-state.
Mr. Peter Shore: In the light of this vast and unappetising menu of proposals for political union and for economic and monetary union, is it not clear that what is being discussed at the intergovernmental conference is every bit as important as the treaty of accession to the treaty of Rome 17 years ago? That being so, will the Prime Minister arrange for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary to report on each ministerial meeting of the relevant IGC that they attend? When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister, his Minister for Europe reported to the House so that it had an opportunity to contribute to the discussions as they unfolded.
The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they are important discussions. We shall certainly report matters of substance to the House.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Would my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all parts of the House on achieving a notable change of style as well as of future substance in the negotiations, thereby showing that we are psychologically committed, as are the other 11, without reducing our negotiating strength in future complicated discussions? It is normal that there will be objections from all sides to various elements of the plan. Will he say more about plans to bring the European Parliament into more contact with national parliaments, working together for an integrated future and a united Europe?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks. In our discussions with our European partners, we have made it perfectly clear that, just as to some extent the European Parliament has had a direct interest in legislation in this House, so we should not overlook the importance of what this House does to the European Parliament. We have identified particular areas over which it would be appropriate for the European Parliament to have extra powers. They are not extra legislative powers but extra powers of control over the Commission and over financial accountability within the Community.
Mr. Giles Radice: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's changed style on Europe is welcome but that the question remains: how far has the substance changed? Are the Government now committed in principle to a single currency and a European bank?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the position perfectly well, for we set it out clearly last June, when I first introduced our proposals for a parallel currency that could develop into a European currency. We need to see to what extent it is accepted and to what extent it works over a period. There is no point in committing ourselves to a principle until we have some experience of whether it is worth while and will work.
Mr. William Cash: Acknowledging the important contribution that my right hon. Friend made to the atmosphere at the Rome summit which contributed to the fact that we ask questions now rather than making decisions on the presidency's conclusions, does he agree that it is wrong to go ahead with the proposals for a central bank, which would pull the consent from under the feet of the British electorate and which would be economic defeatism of the first order and ensure that the people of this country no longer had control over the economic and social priorities that they have chosen in general elections?
The Prime Minister: As I said a few moments ago, we did not discuss economic and monetary union over the weekend, but the matters to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention are the substance of the intergovernmental conference that will deal with them.
Mr. William Ross: The statement mentioned food aid to Russia. Surely it is not really food aid that Russia needs but a method of distributing it once it is inside Russia. What steps can the right hon. Gentleman and the Community take to ensure that such distribution takes place?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that it is a question not only of food aid but of ensuring that any food aid that reaches Russia is properly distributed to the people who are in need in the Soviet Union. We propose to meet that by using some of the resources that will be available under the technical assistance sums that we granted over the weekend. We are determined to ensure, as far as we can, that the food reaches the people who are in need and for whom it is intended.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even those among us who believe that further pooling of sovereignty will be in this country's long-term interests none the less welcome his step-by-step approach, and warmly applaud his success in finding allies among the EC Governments for the attainment of British objectives?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In many of the complex matters that will come before the Community in the next few years, the views of different member states will be complex and will often overlap with ours. I certainly believe that, wherever we can, we should build up our alliances to achieve the result that is right for this country and for Europe.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Although I welcome emergency aid to the Soviet Union and to eastern Europe, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the fact that 20 million people are facing starvation in Africa, and that that emergency aid should not be allowed to divert attention from the catastrophes affecting the developing world or to divert funds, which they are giving in inadequate amounts to such countries?
The Prime Minister: I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially about the difficulties in the horn of Africa. It is likely that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will make a statement about that before long.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, two or three weeks ago, there was an assize in Rome, attended by individuals from national parliaments, and from the European Parliament, and that that body reached conclusions which represented the opinions of no one, but those individuals? As that body has decided to make representations to the IGC, will he treat the representations for what they really are—phoney, flawed and fallacious?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clear clue to how we should deal with any representations that come from that quarter.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Prime Minister recall that, when the Single European Act was presented to the House—with all its far—reaching implications, its defects and surprises—it was adopted by his party? Therefore, would it not be wise for the proposals contained in the Rome communiqué and their implications for the United Kingdom to be fully investigated by the House, with all the means at its disposal? Would not a failure to do so from now onwards constitute a democratic deficit in the area of Westminster?
The Prime Minister: The House has had a number of opportunities to debate these matters. As to whether there
164
will be more, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As the hon. Gentleman will know, because of his experience in these matters, at the time of the Single European Act there was a large menu of possibilities for it, many of which were unsatisfactory to us, and which were gradually whittled down in the negotiations on the Act. Precisely the same may occur this time.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the original proposals in the social charter have, under the influence of the Government and others, changed enormously since they were first tabled. Does my right hon. Friend believe that our partners will eventually come round to the British view that over-regulation of hours and conditions of working are the wrong way to go, and that we should be opening up the labour market?
The Prime Minister: I certainly share the view that my hon. Friend has just expressed. As I said earlier, there has been no question of a change of course in terms of our views on the social charter. I shall continue to represent that view in Europe.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is it not clear that one of the most important aspects of these discussions should have been the completion of the GATT round? That is a problem here and now, unlike economic and political union, which is for some time in the far distant future. Is it not also clear that Jacques Delors, when he talked about the crisis within Community countries, was clearly missing the point—that the crisis concerns the role of the President of the Commission himself?
The Prime Minister: We certainly do need to complete the GATT round, but that clearly could not have been done at the European Council, because the negotiating partners were not there. What was agreed absolutely at the Council was the existence of two clear, unmistakable signals: first, that the European Community wanted a successful outcome to the GATT round, and, secondly, that its negotiators—Mr. Andriessen and Mr. MacSharry—were to go back and discuss the content of the GATT round with others, with the intention of reaching a satisfactory conclusion. That was felt strongly by all the Heads of Government who were present.
Sir Michael Marshall: May I return to the question of food and, I trust, other emergency aid from west to east? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the military forces of both west and east possess spare capacity in regard to transportation, medical supplies and the whole infrastructure of communications? Will he use his good offices to harness that side of our resources, as well as civil resources, to ensure that aid goes to those who really need it—as he said earlier that it should?
The Prime Minister: That last point is clearly criticial, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. We are at present examining both the priorities and the channels for the disbursement of food, and have asked the Commission to engage in a similar process. Whether that will extend beyond the civil authorities is currently unclear, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the Prime Minister make clear the position relating to food aid and other support for the Soviet Union? Is it distinctly

165
dependent on the personal position of President Gorbachev, or will aid be given irrespective of personal positions in the Soviet Union?
The Prime Minister: The issues have not been particularly tied, although everyone will acknowledge that President Gorbachev has made remarkable changes in the Soviet Union over recent years. Given the difficulties he faces, and the difficulties experienced by so many in finding food in the Soviet Union, we felt that it was right for us to help, and I think that that view was universal.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that the weekend brought emotional reactions from both Jacques Delors and Woodrow Wyatt suggests that his tactics during the Rome summit must have been right? Does he agree that those tactics—which included stressing what we have in common with our European partners, rather than stressing our differences—have been confirmed as likely to build a better future in the Community? In particular, has he noted that the French are moving in his direction, in that they wish to reform the various institutions of the Community but to retain the present institutional balance? Is that not a welcome development?
The Prime Minister: I agree that it is welcome. Part of the business of building the sort of Europe that we wish to see is ensuring that its institutions are both effective and efficient, and there is still a considerable amount of work to be done in that regard.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the Prime Minister explain what he meant by
"observance of the principle of subsidiarity"?
Will he give us some concrete examples of the allocation of key governmental functions between national Parliaments and Community institutions? Who does he think should make the decisions on allocation?
The Prime Minister: The principle of subsidiarity is clear: things should not be done at Community level which can be better done at national level.
Sir Richard Body: In Rome, did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of explaining to the other 11 members of the European Council that the common agricultural policy cost the average British family £16 a week last year, and is likely to cost them £20 a week this year?
The Prime Minister: The detail of the common agricultural policy was not central to our agenda. There was some discussion in private, however—not in the European Council—and I think that there is a general recognition in the Community that the CAP will bear further investigation.
Mr. Ron Leighton: When he considers the establishment of a single currency, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the fact that the exchange rate mechanism is the embryonic first stage of such a currency, and that within weeks it has done grave damage to the country? The domestic economy is crying out for a cut in interest rates, but, because the uncompetitive nature of the British economy means that the pound is now bumping along in the lower band of the ERM, such a cut cannot be made. The Chancellor is saying that his overriding priority
166
is to maintain an untenable exchange rate. Would a single currency lock us into that unsatisfactory position in perpetuity?
The Prime Minister: The exchange rate mechanism is not necessarily the first step to a single currency, as the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware. I reiterate what I said a little earlier—that the purpose of Government economic policy is to bring down the rate of inflation, not to replace inflation today with inflation tomorrow by a premature and unwise movement on interest rates.
Mr. Ralph Howell: Bearing in mind the heavy price that the Soviet Union is paying for holding down food prices to 1945 levels, will my right hon. Friend totally reject the advice that he has just received from the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) who constantly undermines British agriculture and Europe in general?
The Prime Minister: I hear with some interest what my hon. Friend says. This is a matter that might best be settled privately in the back room.
Mr. James Lamond: When the Prime Minister spoke of sending our negotiators back to the table at the GATT negotiations with a view to making progress, surely he cannot intend that we weaken even further our attitude towards this country's clothing and textile industry, which is already suffering from the fact that the European Community is supposed to deal with matters relating to dumping, but never gets round to doing so? The textile industry has already conceded enormous benefit to developing countries and is in a state of crisis at the moment. Surely nothing can be done on that side of the negotiations to enable further progress to be made.
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the area that primarily restricted progress in the GATT talks was not the area to which he has referred; it was agriculture. A negotiating remit was available to the Commission. We have agreed that it should be fully utilised and we think that, within that, it will be possible to find an agreeable settlement with our other partners in the GATT round.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend take the President of the European Commission quietly to one side and explain to him that the British people do not react well to threats and that, if he wants to ensure our co-operation and our £6 million a day contribution towards the funds of the European Community, he had better control his irritation at the fact that my right hon. Friend is making friends and influencing people?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and I am sure that his comments will be noted throughout Europe. Our principal concern in all the negotiations is to ensure that, at their conclusion, there is a sensible agreement that is satisfactory and right for this country.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in the context of political union, there is to be a debate on defence matters? How will that leave our position in NATO? Will he confirm that NATO is the bulwark of our European defence policy? How will

167
that debate affect our special relationship with the United States, and where will it leave the Western European Union?
The Prime Minister: There was a very satisfactory discussion on that in NATO yesterday, but there was general agreement among all the European partners about the absolute primacy and importance of the NATO Alliance. It is worth considering how the Western European Union can itself be built up as a European bulwark of the NATO Alliance.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend accept the many congratulations that he has received this afternoon on a remarkable triumph of personal diplomacy in Rome? His talents in that area will be a great national asset in the months and years to come. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the anti-inflationary teeth of the hard ecu proposal represent the best possible mechanism for achieving convergence of the Community economies on a low inflation rate, which is an aim that all of us in the Community must surely have in common, with the possible exception of the British Labour party?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, especially on the last point. The hard ecu proposal that we have produced would be the most anti-inflationary currency that Europe has ever seen.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: On the question of food surpluses from the EEC, has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to look at last night's edition of the Glasgow Evening Times, which reported that hundreds of people queued outside an unemployment centre to get free mince, stew and butter? One unemployed man was heard to comment, "My youngest is 17 months, and this comes in handy for Christmas." If the EEC is going to distribute food, surely it should do so in a more dignified manner.
The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure that people in Moscow and elsewhere, who have no food and empty shops, would entirely agree.
Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, for many people, the breakdown of the GATT negotiations was far more important than the discussions on a single currency? Does he further accept that, without fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, there is a risk of mounting recession and trade war?
The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the GATT talks. I share his view that we must reconsider how the common agricultural policy works. It is not the most efficient way to help farming, although in areas of this country and elsewhere help on social and other grounds will be necessary.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: In those discussions on reform of the common agricultural policy, will the Prime Minister and the Government agree with proposals reportedly being considered by the European Commission that the CAP should be phased out and replaced with a policy based on environmental protection and direct income aid for small farmers?
The Prime Minister: No such proposals on reform of the common agricultural policy have been made. The Commission has said that it is committed to bringing forward proposals and measures to accompany the Community offer in the GATT talks. Those proposals may be less radical than has been suggested in some newspaper reports that I have seen, but the key to reform of the common agricultural policy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) made clear a moment or so ago, remains a successful conclusion of the GATT round, and we are working to achieve that.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As one of the few specific matters of agreement on this proposal relates to the approximation of the VAT system and excise duties to complete the internal market, and as the agreement particularly said that proceedings have to be completed in the near future, will my right hon. Friend say when the House of Commons and the people of Britain will be told what is involved, because there was unanimous agreement that those proceedings would be completed in the near future?
The Prime Minister: In no sense have we agreed to approximation of VAT rates. We have expressed long-standing opposition to that on a variety of grounds, as my hon. Friend knows. Nothing that was said or done in the European Council this weekend has changed that.
Mr. Harry Ewing: The Prime Minister referred to the unanimous decision to support the use of force in the Gulf. Apart from Britain and France, how many of the other 10 member states have ground forces stationed in the Gulf? Are those countries supporting the United Kingdom and France in a war in which they are not prepared to take part?
The Prime Minister: The ground forces, as the hon. Gentleman says, are predominantly British, which are substantial, as well as French forces. Several of our Community partners have naval and, in some cases, air representation there as well.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mr. Delors that the United Kingdom, which has expressed reservations about EMU at the highest possible level, has a better right than some other countries to propose a counter-draft? Does he believe that his proposal of the hard ecu is steadily gaining ground?
The Prime Minister: We certainly shall propose a counter-draft, which is in the course of preparation, and I hope that we shall be able to make it available in early January if work continues as satisfactorily as at present. We have a perfect right to put it forward, and I am pleased that others are seeking to do the same; it will add to the success of the debate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of the oldest nation states in the world are in western Europe and that they have signed hundreds of treaties between them in the past 10 centuries, most of which finished up in the dustbin? With the Rome treaty, which is based on the free movement of capital and labour and which has so many contradictions, we are reaching the point where decisions will have to be made. Is he aware that the British people do not want a single currency or a central bank dominated by the Germans? If he takes note

169
of what the British people are saying, he will refuse the accolades of Conservative Members to go further down that Common Market road. One thing is certain: political union will not mean that somebody with a name like Herr von Baron Straushauser will stand for Labour in Bolsover. That will be the end of that.
The Prime Minister: Party politics aside, I have no doubt that somebody by the name of Skinner will represent Bolsover at least until the general election. There may well be contradictions in the free market, but there is chaos in the sort of managed market that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends would wish upon us.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his achievement in persuading our partners in Rome that we want to be participants and not merely observers is significant? Is it not one of the consequences that many of the smaller EC countries that would privately have agreed with a number of our positions will now be more public in making that clear? Does that not mean that the candidate for isolation will be not the United Kingdom but the President of the Commission? Those centralist, socialist ideas have the whole-hearted support only of the British Labour party.
The Prime Minister: It is certainly true that we want a liberal, open-market economy, and that is what we propose to work for. The closer we get to the difficult decisions which need to be taken on economic and monetary union, the more the difficulties of a centralised, prescriptive approach become apparent and the more the attractions of a pragmatic step-by-step approach, with experience gained on the way before making the final decisions, can clearly be seen.
Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Prime Minister has described his approach in the EC as considered and thoughtful, why was caution abandoned in respect of sanctions against South Africa? Why did the EC specifically rebuff Nelson Mandela's request that sanctions should continue for a while, at least until President de Klerk delivers on his promises? Has the Prime Minister no conception of the perils and dangers for the peace process in South Africa? Is he aware that constantly saying that he is rewarding de Klerk makes the process much more difficult? If that country falls into chaos, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government will have a heavy responsibility to bear.
The Prime Minister: I could not disagree more. Discussions on this matter have been going on for 10 months or so. The hon. Gentleman referred to President de Klerk delivering his policies. I remind him that Mr. Mandela has been released, political parties have been unbanned, agreement with the African National Congress to phase the release of other political prisoners and the return of exiles has been achieved, abolition of the state of emergency has been achieved, the Separate Amenities Act has been repealed, the moratorium on executions and reform of the death penalty have been achieved and a series of further promises has been sought. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to put such a block on future events that we cannot move forward? That would be the outcome of following his policy.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the enthusiasm for the idea that the level playing field, which the European Community is supposed to establish, should work. I very much welcomed his statement that sanctions were being considered against countries that did not honour their pledges. Would he like to spell out a little more his hopes and proposals in that sphere?
The Prime Minister: We shall certainly lay down some detailed proposals at the IGC. First, we intend that there should be much closer accountability of countries so that we can check, through the Commission, on how many European pieces of legislation they are enforcing. Secondly, we are concentrating on having a fining procedure for those countries that repeatedly accept legislation but blatantly do not implement it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would not the candid answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) be that 10 nations of the Community will have no truck with committing land forces? What was said in Rome about the proposed meeting with Tariq Aziz? Why do we oppose it? If the Prime Minister is going to visit the forces—I should welcome that—should he not also call in on the Yemen to hear what its people have to say and Jordan to hear what they have to say and perhaps discuss with Felipe Gonzales and others the possibility, given the horrendous human and ecological consequences of using the military option, of swallowing his pride and paying a visit to Baghdad?
The Prime Minister: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that that would be helpful. The Community leaders, without exception, were perfectly clear in setting out in the clearest possible terms their condemnation and abhorrence of Iraqi actions. Again without exception, they demanded Iraq's complete, immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait by 15 January. They are perfectly well aware that, if there is to be peace, it is in the hands of Saddam Hussein. It is for him to withdraw. It is he who blatantly and without any just cause invaded an adjacent country and occupied it, and has steadily been dismantling it day by day. The international community should not, could not, and will not stand by and see that happen.
Sir Jim Spicer: The Baltic republics of the Soviet Union were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a particular status should be afforded to those four republics in technical and food aid?
The Prime Minister: That matter was not discussed during the Rome summit over the past couple of days. We were primarily concerned to ensure that a substantial amount of food aid was available at the centre and that there should be proper distribution to the many people who seem to be unable to obtain food at the moment.
Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Prime Minister said, in referring to the Soviet policy on agriculture, that the advice had been given that the Soviet Union should be
"more responsive to the market",
are we to assume that the Community will offer the same advice to its member states?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be certain that that is so.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In respect of the question of substance over monetary union, may I remind my right hon. Friend what the then Prime Minister said on 30 October in her initial statement which, we understood, was approved by the Cabinet? Did she not say:
"And I again emphasised that we would not be prepared to have a single currency imposed upon us, nor to surrender the use of the pound sterling as our currency"?—[Official Report, 30 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 870.]
Can my right hon. Friend now give a clear undertaking that he will never recommend a single currency to the House?
The Prime Minister: What we have made perfectly clear, as my hon. Friend knows, is that we will examine the proposition, lay a draft treaty to the proposition of a parallel European currency and leave it, as I would have thought that my hon. Friend would have been the first to appreciate, to the market, to individuals, to companies and to Governments to decide whether to use that currency.
Mr. John Bowis: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his outstanding contribution to the success of the conference, and I welcome the decisions made on eastern and central Europe. Was my right hon. Friend able to express, on behalf of the people of this country, our concerns about the reality of democracy in some countries, such as Bulgaria and Romania? Was it also possible to make contingency arrangements for the situation that may be developing in Albania, where Europe may and should be asked to come to the Albanians' aid?
The Prime Minister: No, that last point was not discussed at Rome over the weekend. Clearly, the earlier concerns that my hon. Friend mentioned were there, but the principal matter under discussion over the weekend on Bulgaria and on Romania was the clear need for food and medical help there. We have, of course, arranged for that to the extent of 100 million ecu, but we have also emphasised the desirability of meeting that expenditure from existing financial resources.
Mr. Chris Butler: Did the Italian Prime Minister explain to my right hon. Friend why he believes that progress towards a European super-state is irreversible? If so, how did my right hon. Friend respond?
The Prime Minister: He did not, so the question on this occasion did not arise.
Mr. John Butterfill: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his robust defence of the principle that, wherever possible, decisions should be made in national parliaments rather than in Brussels? Does he agree that the principle of subsidiarity needs further defending by being incorporated in amendments to the treaties and that any dispute on that should not be referred to an undemocratic and unelected court but should be determined by a meeting of national parliaments, as has been proposed by several European Governments and by Mr. Alain Poher of the French Senate?
The Prime Minister: I can confirm that, provided that we can get a satisfactory and agreed definition of subsidiarity, we will wish to see it incorporated in the treaty.
Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievement in Rome in changing the summit so that, instead of it being II to one it was 12 to one and Britain was not the one.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that we can find the United Kingdom in a position in which it takes a positive role in the development of the European Community. Of course, there will be occasions on which we hold the minority view but, provided that we are satisfied that that view is correct, we shall continue to pursue it.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if his discussions with Chancellor Kohl about closer links between the British Conservative party and the CDU are successful, the effect on Europe could be dramatic? The unification of the non-socialist majority of the European Parliament could mean that more sense came out of that Parliament and that more control was exercised by it over the arrogance of the President of the Commission.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. No sensible person would want a socialist Europe.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his ecumenical and subtle Euro-diplomacy already seems to be producing some interesting results? Has he seen today's press reports suggesting that the Dutch and French Governments are now moving away from their alleged commitment to the Delors plan for EMU? Could that be the start of a new scenario: "Fog in Channel—Delors Isolated"?
The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure of the weather, but it is true that some of our European partners, having examined in detail the earlier plans for European monetary union, have now begun to see some of the considerable defects in them that we observed at an earlier stage. I hope that that trend will continue.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: May I ask the two Opposition Members now standing whether they were present for the beginning of the statement?
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Not throughout.
Mr. Graham Allen: The Prime Minister referred to the GATT negotiators not totally fulfilling their remit in the collapse of the GATT talks. Will he tell the House what flexibility there is within the previous remit issued to the European GATT negotiators and whether that remit needed to be and was extended at the recent meeting of Heads of Government?
The Prime Minister: The remit was not extended in the meeting of Heads of Government. The broad remit was a 30 per cent. reduction in the level of 1986 subsidies. That was not fully utilised. Indeed, nobody was asking for a bigger reduction in the GATT talks. They were asking for a redistribution within the 30 per cent., and that is a matter upon which the negotiators have room to move.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Given that the majority of American troops are now being removed from Europe to the Gulf, perhaps never to return, and that the peoples of the Soviet Union and north America now look to Europe on a force for peace, security and assistance throughout the world, will my right hon. Friend and his Government give favourable consideration to the Italian proposals for a common initiative on defence, possibly including a common defence force?
The Prime Minister: I am not immediately attracted to that posture. Our main defence posture has, for a long time, been successfully within the NATO alliance, and I believe that it is in the clear interests of this country for that to remain the position in the future.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the highly successful conference in Rome, it is vital that all members of the European Community continue to apply strict economic sanctions to Iraq until Saddam Hussein gets out of Kuwait and pays for all the damage that he has done and the human suffering that he has caused?
The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The degree of unity on that issue across Europe, and, I am glad to say, within the House, is of immense importance in that respect.
Mr. Grocott: Will the Prime Minister reflect upon the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) on South Africa? Does he understand that the fundamental reason why Nelson Mandela was put in gaol over a quarter of a century ago was that he was denied the basic democratic right to vote in the country of his birth because of the colour of his skin? Until progress is made on that fundamental issue, is it not unacceptable that there should be any concessions to the present South African Government?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know from the list that I read out some time ago, there have been
174
considerable movements within South Africa, which we welcome. Now the modest move has been taken of lifting the investment ban throughout the European Community. As further moves proceed in South Africa, we shall be able to make further moves towards lifting sanctions. I am sure that that is the best way to achieve the outcome that we all wish to see—a truly open and democratic society in South Africa, which moves back into the community of nations. There is no disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and me over the objective. We believe that the tactics that we are pursuing and the tactics of the European Community agreed to at the weekend are the right way to ensure that progress continues. That is surely in the interests of all South Africans.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend and his team are to be congratulated on their performance in Rome and on the outcome. Were his colleagues in Rome made aware of the strength of feeling in the United Kingdom that Poland, the country over which we went to war in 1939 and on behalf of which we made such enormous sacrifices, should become as early as possible a member of a free, democratic nation-state Community of the type that he and Conservative Members would like to see emerge? Did his colleagues in Rome understand that we in this House do not take kindly to bureaucrats, whoever they are, issuing threats?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's last point will have been noted elsewhere.
I believe that I am correct in saying that Poland already has associated membership of the Community. In due course, when it is appropriate and when Poland is in an economic position to enter, we shall be pleased to see that country join the Community.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will bear in mind the six hon. Members who have not been called and ensure that I give them priority the next time that the Prime Minister answers questions.

Points of Order
4.31 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order which refers to Question Time, Mr. Speaker. Are we entitled to ask a general policy question which does not affect an individual? Are we entitled to ask whether a change of policy on the award of hereditary baronetcies has taken place?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question but if the right hon. Member will submit a question, the Table Office will certainly consider it with care. However, I draw the attention of hon. Members to "Erskine May" page 288, which says:
"It has been ruled that the Prime Minister cannot be interrogated as to the advice that he may have given to the sovereign with regard to the grant of honours, or the ecclesiastical patronage of the Crown or the appointment and dismissal of Privy Councillors or the dissolution of Parliament."
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for the Vote Office to make copies of the helpful report of the proceedings of the European Council available to all hon. Members so that we are aware of the official conclusions of conferences, which are published in Brussels and are made available from time to time? I have a copy here. Would it not be helpful and avoid doubt about what was agreed if copies were made available through the Vote Office? Will you look into that?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for Ministers, but I shall look into it.
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I should just like to say one happy thing. May I wish the right hon. Member a very happy 70th birthday? Will that be a substitute for other points of order?
Dr. John Reid: On that happy note, may I take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year? I am sorry to return to the point of order previously raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) about Question Time, but I do so having read "Erskine May" in the interim. I ask for your guidance. Having read "Erskine May" on titles, it is my understanding that it would be legitimate to ask the Prime Minister a general question on how his expressed philosophy in one area may conflict with his actions in general in another area—the creation of hereditary titles or peerages. As we have both now read "Erskine May", would you agree with such a ruling?
Mr. Speaker: A general question to the Prime Minister is one thing, but the question asked at Prime Minister's Question Time was not a general but a specific question. That is why I ruled it out of order.
Mr. Tony Favell: May I support the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)? It is most important that the conclusions of these conferences are made available to the House. They go to the very root of the powers of the House, and it is important that we know what the
176
Commission's conclusions are, so that we can question them at the earliest possible moment. This affects you, Mr. Speaker, as much as everyone else.
Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of that, and I certainly agree with the proposition. The matter is for those on the Front Bench. The Prime Minister is sitting there, and I am sure that he has heard what has been said.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to the point of order of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), Mr. Speaker. On 9 June last year, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to abolish the granting of honours for political purposes to stop the practice whereby, after 20 years' service and with full pay packets, Tory Members automatically receive a knighthood. I was deeply critical of the way in which the Prime Minister of the day was using the honours system. In giving advice to the Queen—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? The hon. Gentleman's ten-minute rule Bill fell.
Mr. Grocott: No, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Well, it did not get on to the statute book and fell when Parliament was prorogued. What is the point of order for me?
Mr. Grocott: As I understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, it is out of order for us in any way to criticise the advice that a Prime Minister gives to the monarch about granting honours. I was deeply critical when I proposed the introduction of my Bill. What is more, the House gave me leave to introduce it. I was supported by many hon. Members throughout the House. Although honours may technically be awarded by the Queen, we all know that advice is given by the Prime Minister. Just as it is in order to criticise Cabinet Ministers who may technically—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate. Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point at once, please? We have a busy day ahead of us.
Mr. Grocott: It is simple, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, you said that it was out of order to criticise the Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I told the hon. Gentleman, and the whole House heard it, that it was out of order for the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) to ask a specific question about a specific honour. If the hon. Gentleman wants to introduce another ten-minute rule Bill, I suggest that he does so.
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say rapidly that the presidency conclusions are in the Library of the House of Commons and are available to hon. Members? I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said about the need to ensure that every hon. Member knows about them in good time.
Mr. Speaker: I agree.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. I recall that, in your earlier statement about the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) to the

177
Prime Minister, you said in effect that we were not allowed to bring the royal family into controversy. Did you mean the house of Windsor, the house of Thatcher, or both?
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that we stand by our own arguments, and do not call in aid members of the royal family. There is a distinction between general matters raised with the Prime Minister or matters raised generally in debate, and the rules for Question Time. I repeat page 288 of "Erskine May":
"It has been ruled that the Prime Minister cannot be interrogated as to the advice that he may have given to the sovereign with regard to the grant of honours".
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On this point, Mr. Speaker. We are all sorry to risk your wrath, particularly at this festive time, but as I understand it, there are five honours which the sovereign can give without advice from the Government. They are the Knights of the Garter, the Knights of the Thistle, the Order of Merit—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be true, but it has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With respect, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Well, what has it to do with me?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If I may forget Christmas charity, Mr. Speaker, if you will not listen to the point, how can you rule? I make the point that the sovereign awards certain awards, including the Royal Victorian Order, without advice from Ministers. Is this House to say that "Erskine May" is set in stone and will not move on with the times in which we live?
Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, was surely to the effect that all other honours are given on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day. Hon. Members should be able to question a Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be, about the honours that are given, except for those that are purely within the royal prerogative. If we cannot do that, "Erskine May" is not a document for us to use but bears down on the liberties of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Remembering that we have a busy day ahead, perhaps I might say to the hon. Member and others who are concerned about the matter that I must put into practice the rules as they are. If the House wants the rules changed, that can be done as a result of a suggestion being made to the Procedurer Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), of all people, would not wish me to change the rules according to my instincts or prerogative.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you recall that, when you were in the House in another capacity and when Harold Wilson was giving honours out here, there and everywhere, criticism was expressed by hon. Members on both sides at a time when certain people were due to be nominated on lavender notepaper, and afterwards when another list was submitted to the Queen?
This is a matter of freedom of speech. The present Prime Minister has declared that he is in favour of a classless society. That must mean the abolition of the honours list. But having declared that, the right hon. Gentleman gives Dennis Thatcher an honour that will be
178
collected by Mr. Thatcher's son when he has passed on. There must be something wrong if we cannot talk about that.
Mr. Speaker: Put it to the Procedure Committee.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that yesterday, at a meeting of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, an attempt was made by a majority of Members on 20 occasions to raise the question of an interest rate cut and, if necessary, a devaluation of the pound. I understand that all the requests—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I trust that the hon. Member is not seeking to raise on the Floor of the House what went on in a Select Committee. He knows the rules. That cannot be done until the Select Committee has reported.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I might put it to you in another way, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper for the Chairman of a Select Committee on 20 separate occasions to rule out a request for a Division?
Mr. Speaker: What is not proper is for the hon. Member to raise on the Floor of the House what went on in a Select Committee until that Select Committee has reported.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: On a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to clarify whether it is within the ambit of the House that the rules of sub judice can be interpreted so generally that I can be refused by the Table Office permission to table early-day motions or written questions relating to the Government Actuary's Department and the responsibility of the Treasury, which knew as far back as 1986 about the problems at Levitts?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady must submit her questions to the Table Office. If they are refused, she may wish to see me about them, and I shall certainly look at them.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a happy point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the hon. Member's birthday, too?
Mr. Ewing: A short while ago, you congratulated an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches on his 70th birthday. You merely looked, when doing that, in the general direction of the Bench on which I am seated. Also seated on this Bench are a number of my hon. Friends who, I am sure, are wondering, as I am, to whom you were referring. Would you care to make it clear that you were referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)?
Mr. Speaker: I was referring to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). But I would say to any right hon. or hon. Member in the House who has a birthday today: happy birthday.

BILL PRESENTED

  EXPORT AND INVESTMENT GUARANTEES
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mrs. Lynda Chalker and Mr. Tim Sainsbury, presented a Bill to make new provision as to the functions exercisable

  179
  by the Secretary of State through the Export Credits Guarantee Department; and make provision as to the delegation of any such functions and the transfer of property, rights and liabilities attributable to the exercise of any such functions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

Licensing Reform Bill
4.44 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications; and for connected purposes.
I admit at the outset that the title of my Bill is more ambitious than the content of the measure, but it is a sensible, limited measure which is sponsored by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that it will be given a Second reading.
There is little doubt that the licensing system in Britain needs reform. The Small Independent Brewers Association tells me that the public house structure comes from the Beer House Act 1830. The Government recognised the need for liberalisation in 1988 as a result of the deliberations of the Erroll committee. Indeed, the Birmingham licensing bench, the biggest in the country, said in 1988:
"The time has come for Parliament to instigate a detailed study of the licensing laws with a view to their wholesale reform."
In July of this year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for these matters, said that the Government recognised that there was a good case for the wholesale reform and updating of the liquor licensing system.
My Bill is more modest that that. It argues for changes to be made in the licensing system which would make it more objective, fair and transparent and more responsive to the needs of the community and the consumer. I emphasise that I have no intention of making relaxations in the existing licensing system. Indeed, I welcome Government measures against irresponsible drinking. In particular, I welcomed their decision in 1988 to give justices more powers to revoke licences with only 26 days' notice and to make the prosecution of under-age drinkers much easier. Even so, the existing system can be restrictive and oppressive in a number of ways.
My remarks may be taken in a geographical, or be thought to have a west midlands, perspective, in that I was a member of the licensing planning committee there for two years some years ago. The Birmingham Post has been conducting a vigorous campaign against what CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—has called
"the notoriously restrictive Birmingham licensing bench."
Even the editor of The Licensing Review has written:
"there is great concern about certain of the policies undertaken by Birmingham and the difficulty in challenging them."
The measures in my Bill will be applicable to and will benefit England and Wales generally. Basically, the Bill contains four measures. The first is to give every applicant who has a licence application rejected the right to know the reasons for the rejection. It seems wrong that, when someone has made what might have been an expensive application and who may have tied up much capital in doing so, he should have no right to be given reasons if his application is rejected. The Home Office says that many benches are prepared to advise applicants of the reasons for rejection, but that is only advice, and my magistrates bench in north Worcestershire tells me:
"It is not usual, or a requirement, that justices should give explanations or reasons for their decisions."

181
That must be wrong. They should be required to do so, as is the case in Scotland.
The second measure would put a time limit on the length of time a person can chair licensing magistrates. I suggest that there is a balance to be struck between experience and a fresh eye and objectivity. Some cities, such as Cardiff and Manchester, have fixed terms. Others do not; for example, in Birmingham, one gentleman was chairman of the licensing magistrates for 22 years. That is not to comment on his integrity, but I suggest that there is a case for limiting the term to five years only.
The third measure would set in motion a maximum period for the consideration of applications that are properly made. Before 1988, that was more difficult, because the transfer sessions met only a few times. There is no such limit now, and although most licensing benches comply with reasonable limits on time, there is a minority which, irrespective of the agreement of the police and the fire and planning authorities, use their powers unnecessarily to delay applications.
For example, in Birmingham recently, there was a £2·2 million scheme for which it took 15 months to obtain even a decision from the licensing magistrates, despite the fact that planning permission had been given by the Labour-controlled council. Eventually, the applicants withdrew in disgust.
The most important measure is to remove from licensing magistrates the criterion of the need to justify a refusal. The criterion of economic need gives rise to inconsistencies and arbitrary decisions, and tends to stifle competition, create local monopolies and reduce consumers' choice without meaningfully protecting the public. Under the Licensing Act 1964, Justices in England and Wales have a wide remit as long as they act, in Lord Widgery's words, "honestly, fairly and conscientiously". It is increasingly recognised that refusals on the ground of need have undesirable consequences.
First, the decisions become prone to inconsistency and become more arbitrary. It is wrong that licensing magistrates, who may not have done market research or put down the capital that applicants did when they entered their applications, should try to second-guess the market, despite the fact that the application would pass on planning grounds, in terms of police objections, the licensee's responsibility and fire objections. It is wrong if, despite those grounds, the application is turned down because it is said that there is no public need for the premises. In its pamphlet "Licensing Law in the 80's", the Justices' Clerks Society said:
"The licensing system, as a result, is often unfair, and expensive to applicants."
Secondly, economic need stifles competition. It is no coincidence that the Justices' Clerks Society said that most
182
objections to licences come from the larger brewers which like to protect their own competitive position. It is no wonder that they control 57 per cent. of off-licences in the United Kingdom. The Small Independent Brewers Association wrote to me recently in support of my measure, saying:
"Our members wish to compete on equal terms with companies who contrive to stifle competition by offering heavy discounts or low-interest loans when trading out of a protected market which our members cannot penetrate."
CAMRA, which also supports my measure, said:
"CAMRA is convinced that the licensing system acts as a barrier to entry and can reinforce local monopolies in the ownership of pubs."
Obviously, those local monopolies are not in the interest of the consumer or our constituents. The Government have recognised that. Lord Young recognised two years ago that the licensing system should not fortify local monopolies, but the Government have yet to act. I hope that my measure will be a further prod to get them moving in that direction.
The criterion of economic need reduces consumer choice. Surely it is wrong that my constituents can satisfy the licensing magistrates, the local planning committee, the police and fire authorities of the need for an off-licence and have it turned down. It is wrong that the Birmingham licensing magistrates should turn down a £750,000 application which has the support of the Labour-controlled city council, the police, fire and tourist authorities and the architects, and say that they refuse it because
"existing facilities in the area are adequate for the requirements of the public."
That is paternalistic and arrogant and denies consumers choice and variety. Therefore, the ground of economic need should be removed from the criteria available to licensing magistrates when considering such decisions.
The measure is modest and sensible. It has support from both sides of the House, and I hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Roger King, Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Simon Burns.
Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 to make new provision with respect to licensing justices and to the grounds upon which applications for liquor licences may be refused; to require a statement of reasons for any refusal; to set a time limit on the consideration of applications; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 18 January and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

Orders of the Day

  Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant documents: Ninth Report from the Defence Committee, of Session 1989–90, on the Progress of the Trident Programme (HC 237), and the Government's Reply thereto contained in the Committee's Seventh Special Report (HC 661).]
  4.53 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement in the House on 5 December 1989 in which he outlined the Government's proposals for the future organisation of the atomic weapons establishment. Those proposals arise from a full review carried out in 1989, which took into account the points raised by the Select Committee in its fifth report on the Trident programme in 1988–89.
  The report of the Select Committee on Defence made a number of points about contractorisation, which the Government have largely accepted. The Committee has not recommended against contractorisation, but said that it should not be rushed. We agree with that and do not plan to move from the present interim arrangements before late 1992.
  My right hon. Friend announced that, as an interim step, a management contractor would be appointed. An invitation to tender for the contract was issued to eight major defence companies on 6 April and three bids were subsequently received from British Aerospace, led by Royal Ordnance; Hunting-BRAE; and a joint bid from Rolls-Royce and Babcock International. After examination of the tenders, the Hunting-BRAE bid was selected as the one that offered the best prospects of improved management and efficiency, together with value for money and safe operation of the establishment.
  Hunting-BRAE has appointed a new chief executive and 19 other managers from the three companies that make up Hunting-BRAE. The staff of the establishment will retain their civil service status for the duration of the contract and the new managers are seconded as civil servants.
  The groundwork is now being prepared for the reorganisation of the establishment's management structure. The contract provides for task forces to carry out studies in three spheres: to look at productivity, pay and conditions; cover management information systems; and deal with long-term manufacturing strategy.
  A consultative document, setting out details for the contractorisation proposals was issued to the atomic weapons establishment trade unions on 5 December to coincide with my right hon. Friend's statement. The trade unions commented on that document and my Department issued a second consultative document on 27 July responding to their comments. The trade unions have proposed that, instead of being operated by a contractor, the establishment should become a "next steps" executive agency or a defence support agency.
  184
  "Next steps" agency arrangements or defence support agencies have considerable attractions for those establishments or organisations that should appropriately remain in the civil service. But where it is appropriate and feasible to introduce full contractorisation, that option is preferred.
  Contractorisation will address the establishment's difficulties in two ways. First, the contractor will have the greatest possible freedom to offer the terms and conditions needed to attract and retain the work force he requires. Contractorisation will enable the establishment to gain the additional project and production management expertise on the scale required, together with access to the corporate support of a major industrial company or consortium. Those benefits cannot be obtained to the same extent from alternative arrangements.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clark: I always give way, even to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I gave way five times last time I was at the Dispatch Box. In the end, we came to an understanding that I could no longer give way. As I judge the mood of the House, it is that we should debate the subject back and forth across the Floor in the short time remaining to us. Although I shall now, as I always do, give way to the hon. Gentleman, I do not propose to give way very generously.
  Mr. Dalyell: Given the experience of the Committee stage of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill 1990, are we guaranteed that the views of the trade unions will be listened to more seriously than happened in respect of the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers? On that occasion, relationships became unnecessarily difficult and even bitter. Is there good will in discussions with the trade unions? May we have that assurance from the Minister?
  Mr. Clark: No, the hon. Gentleman may not. I do not doubt that the Committee stage of this Bill will be extremely constructive and fruitful, and that it will possibly be a prolonged experience. However, the only views to which I and my hon. Friend propose to listen are those of right hon. and hon. Members.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: That is shocking. We will deal with the Minister upstairs in Committee.
  Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the arrangements, understandings and conventions of the House. It is for individual right hon. and hon. Members, who are elected to this place, to articulate the views of their constituents, and of their sponsors, in the case of Labour Members. I cannot give an undertaking that the Committee will specifically listen to the views of trade unionists. It will listen to members of the Committee and to other right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) knows that perfectly well.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My question was whether Ministers would listen to the views of trade unionists—although not necessarily only in Committee. I asked my question in good faith, and I am appalled by the Minister's answer.
  Mr. Clark: In every other field, such a combination of functions in one entity would be undertaken in industry

  185
  and not in government. The fact that the business is nuclear means that safeguards are required, but not that the personnel must be civil servants.
  My Department remains committed to consultation with the trade unions on all detailed aspects of contractorisation. Further consultative documents will be produced in due course dealing with specific issues such as pensions. We are always ready to meet the trade unions to discuss any specific issues that may be of concern to their members. I repeat that for the benefit of any Labour Member who was not listening. That is a totally different matter from representations made in Committee upstairs, as the hon. Member for Ashfield well knows.
  My Department will not compromise on safety. The establishment has an excellent safety record. The current safety organisation at the establishment will remain in existence after vesting day, and the highest standards will continue to apply. The Health and Safety Executive will continue to he heavily involved in safety issues at the establishment under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as it does now.
  As to the provisions of the Bill, clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to designate activities and premises at AWE. The provisions in the rest of the Bill will apply when arrangements are made for those designated activities to be carried out under contract by a company.
  Clause 2 ensures that the transfer of AWE activities—and with them its staff—to the contractor will be governed by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE 81—which protect the interests of staff by preserving conditions of service at the time of transfer. TUPE 81 does not preserve pension arrangements, although it does make it clear that there should not be a detrimental change in working conditions, including pensions, as a result of the transfer. My Department will therefore introduce a new, private sector pension scheme at AWE, which will mirror the provisions of the principal civil service pension scheme and UKAEA principal non-industrial superannuation scheme as closely as possible. The new scheme will provide benefits that are at least as good as under existing schemes.
  A new redundancy payments scheme will also be set up that will, when taken together with pension scheme benefits, provide redundancy payments of an equivalent value to those payable under the PCSPS. I must stress, however, that we do not expect redundancies among AWE's work force as a result of the introduction of contractor operation.
  Clause 2 also ensures that the establishment's staff will not be treated as having been made redundant when they cease to be civil servants and become employees of the contractor, with the same jobs and the same conditions of service.
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Including pensions?
  Mr. Clark: I have just mentioned those.
  In practice, AWE staff will be transferred not directly to the contractor but to a company formed by the Secretary of State to act as the employer of all establishment staff. That employing company will then be acquired by the company that wins the competition for the full contractor operation of AWE.
  Clause 3, together with the schedule, preserves AWE's current position with respect to certain items of legislation.
  186
  After vesting day, establishment land, facilities and other assets will remain the property of the Crown, but will be operated by the contractor. It will be necessary for certain privileges related to Crown status to remain in force., for security and, in some cases, for practical reasons.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Minister say something about the interface between the AWE under contractorisation and the warhead operation at Coalport and Faslane? I understand that that operation is currently totally interfaced by the MOD, but that under contractorisation, there will be a cut-off. What will be the interface between private enterprise contractorisation and the AWE in relation to the MOD's warheads operation at Coalport and Faslane?
  Mr. Clark: I recognise the importance of that aspect, but it is tangential to the measure now before the House, so it is not one on which I shall comment now. However, if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he can expand on that point later, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement would certainly respond. Also, I have no doubt that the Committee will consider that matter as one of prime importance during its deliberations Upstairs.
  In cases where there is room for legal doubt whether a necessary Crown privilege would continue to apply after contractorisation, provision has been made in the schedule to ensure that it will. That does not necessarily mean that, in each case, the privilege would be lost if no provision were made. The intention is to put the issue beyond doubt. We will continue to examine AWE's position in relation to the Acts mentioned in the schedule before and during Committee stage.
  The main reason for the provisions that have been made in the schedule is security. It is essential that access to classified nuclear weapon information, and to the highly sensitive AWE sites themselves, is restricted to specially cleared personnel. The majority of the provisions in the schedule are intended to prevent local authorities and other non-Crown bodies from acquiring rights of access to establishment sites and to nuclear weapon information.
  There are also practical reasons involved. For instance, so that my Department will have the flexibility to change the contractor in the future, it will be necessary to prevent a contractor from acquiring security of tenure at establishment sites. Accordingly, there is provision for AWE to be exempt from the section of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 that deals with security of tenure for business tenants.
  Clause 3 also gives the Secretary of State power to repeal or amend any of the provisions of the schedule. Clause 4 ensures that the Ministry of Defence police will continue to fulfil its existing roles with respect to the establishment. They include not only its vital guarding role at the sites, but also criminal investigation. My Department will continue to be responsible for setting security standards, and for the vetting of AWE staff, who will have to meet the same stringent security requirements that apply now.
  Clause 5 provides for certain expenses that might arise in connection with the employing company to be paid for out of money provided by the House.
  As well as creating a framework within which contractor operation can be introduced, the Bill provides safeguards both for the United Kingdom's defence

  187
  interests, by helping to protect national security considerations, and for AWE staff, by ensuring that they will keep their existing jobs without detriment to their conditions of service when the contractor is introduced. Those, together with other rigorous safeguards that will be imposed through the provisions of the contract, and by the close and continuous scrutiny of the establishment by my Department through the compliance office, will ensure that the considerable benefits of contractor operation will be achieved without detriment to safety, security, or the establishment's world-class reputation as a research establishment. I commend the Bill to this House.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: When the Secretary of State announced his intention to introduce the Bill 12 months ago, many of us expressed grave reservations about it. Like most people who follow the work of the atomic weapons establishment, I was aware of the difficulties facing it. Last year, I had the opportunity to visit Aldermaston and Burghfield and I spoke to people at both plants.
  There is little disagreement that the problem was pay. The same conclusion was reached by the National Audit Office in 1987, when it said:
  "The MOD identified the basic problem as being uncompetitive Civil Service pay."
  The Select Committee on Defence noted that, at Aldermaston and Burghfield, pay for skilled workers is£148 while in the rest of the travel-to-work area the average wage is of the order of £209. That has resulted in the problem of staff shortages in the AWE doubling from 268 in March 1988 to 552 in March this year.
  As I understand it, the Bill's purpose is to address the challenge to management arising not only from staff shortages but, since there is to be an increase in the scale of manufacturing, from the weakness in production manufacturing. It also seeks to address the problem of the undue distraction of research scientists from their research work.
  Those aspects merely serve to reinforce my original point about the problems of pay and staff shortages in an area where one has to concede that the economy is overheated. If the AWE were to be relocated, the first choice would not be the Thames valley. I am not sure that many other communities would be prepared to have it, but I recognise that some of the past concerns about safety have been unfounded, because its record has been good. Whether that would be the case in future is open to question.
  It would be wrong to suggest that the Ministry of Defence has done nothing about pay. It must be given credit for its attempts to introduce special pay arrangements. However, they have often created more problems than they have resolved. For example, when pay rises were given to one group in span 8, people in the allegedly higher group 7 found that they were being paid less and asked to be downgraded. Because of the narrowness of the Treasury instruction, money was made available only to a particular section of work force at any one time and a comprehensive review of pay and conditions was never possible. In a number of instances,
  188
  the Treasury created problems by intervening. There is no one here to defend the Treasury, but it defends itself well enough by other means.
  There are cases within the United Kingdom public sector where unions have been able to negotiate new and more flexible arrangements as, for example, in the case of the highly successful deal for the railway inspectorate, as outlined in the evidence to the Select Committee.
  The resolution of such difficulties need not require the kind of Bill that is being proposed today. The model of the Defence Research Agency could be taken. Staff could be brought in from outside the civil service, new management structures could be adopted, more flexible pay scales created and the current reallocation of work between the various establishments could continue.
  The present AWE structure is being retained and the various plants are not being split up, as happened with the contractorisation of the dockyards. How the management structures will operate may be debated in Committee. I remember sitting through the Committee proceedings of the Dockyard Services Bill 1986 and being told that the attraction was stand-alone management in each place. I realise that the functions are different and I shall return to that point. Even without the contractorised arrangement, there could be subcontracting between sites and that would assist greatly.
  But the basic point that the Government do not appreciate is that the contractorisation of the AWE requires a privatisation of the labour force. It will be taken out of the civil service and become the asset of the employing company. The workers will cease to be civil servants and will not be guaranteed many of the employment rights that they presently enjoy. The Minister said that a number of things would be just about the same, that he hopes that things will be all right, but that no guarantees can be given.
  Mr. Alan Clark: I do not anticipate any redundancies.
  Mr. O'Neill: We shall wait and see about that. The experiences of other contractorisations have been mixed. Where new management teams have come in with the purpose of, as much as anything else, finding new work, they have been reasonably successful. But if the labour shortages are to be overcome, more people will have to be employed in the short term, with the higher wages needed to attract them, being funded, I imagine, by the higher productivity in the early stages, and that in turn will result in redundancies in the future.
  I wrote that passage before the Minister spoke and I read it in its entirety because I recognise that the Minister said that no redundancies are anticipated. But will he confirm that no redundancies will be anticipated throughout the five years of the contract?
  Mr. Alan Clark: I stand exactly by my words. No redundancies are anticipated. One of the advantages that will accrue from the Bill is a greater flexibility in terms and conditions and pay which will allow more effective recruitment. No one can predict what will happen in five years' time. It would be irresponsible to do so.
  Mr. O'Neill: That is fine. We have now got it. At least at the beginning of the five-year period no redundancies are anticipated, but towards the end they are a possibility.
  Mr. Alan Clark: No, not at all.
  Mr. O'Neill: The Minister will give no undertakings, and that is what I said earlier. That is the kind of problem we have had. I recognise that people do not have jobs for life, but under the system that the Minister envisages, money will be made available by the contractors, as is often the case in such contracts, in the early stages when there is no profit, and only as the five-year period goes on will profits begin to accrue.
  The situation is viewed over the five years. In this instance, we shall see additional recruitment and an enhancement of conditions, and we shall then have to get increased productivity. Thereafter, as I said earlier and as the Minister has now conceded, it cannot be guaranteed that there will be no redundancies towards the end of the five-year period. That is the only way in which I can see this measure washing its face financially. We will doubtless come back to that in Committee.
  Individuals may well he surplus to requirements or not suited to the new set-up, and the difficulty about removing them from the civil service is that they will no longer have access to the other career openings that the civil service offers. They would have to leave the AWE and apply afresh to the civil service, which is a complicated business and which need not be imposed on the work force in the way that I have described.
  I am concerned that the Minister has glided over the honouring of existing agreements. He has said that conditions and the private pension scheme will be better. We shall have to look at that again to see what guarantees in writing can be given to the work force that that will be so. If it proves correct, I shall be happy to concede the point on Third Reading; but, as we say in Scotland, I hae me doots.
  In Committee we shall examine the issues surrounding the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE 81—but that is a detailed matter and we do not have time to go into it now.
  The British experience of Government-owned, contractor-operated—GOCO—facilities is limited. Neither Rosyth nor Devonport has a great record on job security. In Devonport the work force has fallen from 14,000 to 5,000. The role of the contractors has been to shed labour. There have been attendant problems in Devonport, as the Minister knows, because of the nature of the site, the rent for which is felt to be excessive, and reductions in the core programme and the difficulties of finding alternative work. In different circumstances, Rosyth has probably done better; it has improved industrial relations and has a good record of winning additional work, but there are still problems with the size of the core programme and with MOD business generally.
  The jury is still out on British GOCOs. That is certainly not so in the United States where the problem has been one of safety. There have been faults due to cost-cutting and carelessness. I know that the record of the AWE is generally good, not least since the recommendations of the Pochen report were implemented. We have not had problems on the scale of those in the United States, where GOCOs will require between £66 billion and £100 billion to be spent on them in the next 25 years. The name Rocky Flats has become synonymous with environmental disaster. The House, the communities around the establishments and the whole country will require much more convincing than we had from the Minister this evening about the duties of the compliance officers.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Chernobyl was not a GOCO.
  Mr. O'Neill: It was not; it was operating under different circumstances. But it is legitimate to compare and contrast the United States and Britain, no matter how unpleasant the Minister may find such comparisons.
  The Opposition believe that the role of the compliance officer is somewhat dubious—not in the sense that we are hostile to him, because we wish him well, but there are other agencies and other ways of looking at the problem. We shall also look at this in detail in Committee. We are not convinced that nuclear safety and profitability are always compatible. We do not envisage that the financial arrangements will be generous enough to ensure that contractors can meet all their responsibilities and still find money at the end to make a sizeable profit.
  The Labour party recognises that AWEs will exist for a long time to come. We want them to be reorganised along the lines of the Defence Research Agency. We are committed to continuing with the Trident programme, and we recognise that AWE will have to accommodate future nuclear disarmament, the dismantling of warheads, and the creation of new inspection and verification procedures. These establishments are unique and are responsible as much for the preparation for peace as for the preparation for war. Understandably, they work in conditions of secrecy.
  The trust that the workers, people who live locally and the nation place in these establishments rests on the knowledge that the director and staff are answerable to the Secretary of State and this House. Labour believes that that clear line of accountability is paramount. We believe that there is a way of resolving the management and production problems of the establishment, and that can be achieved—
  Mr. Douglas: Given the hon. Gentleman's responsibilities, it would be helpful if he would clarify the position of a future Labour Government. Would they be in a position to cancel the contract or to renegotiate it and bring everything back into the public domain?
  Mr. O'Neill: We shall have to wait and see what happens. We are in the run-up to a general election, and I believe that this contract will never see the light of day. We shall win the general election, and the contract will not proceed. Vesting day is towards the end of this Parliament, and it is likely that the Government will have been defeated by then—not that the hon. Gentleman will have anything other than an academic interest in the House by that stage.
  The Opposition believe that establishing an agency capable of working out new pay deals free from Treasury interference and capable of securing higher productivity through having a full complement of staff and keeping that staff in the civil service, can meet the obligations of the House to the people who work in the industry. We can assure the people who live around it that their environment, health and safety will be maintained, and we believe that the security of the nation can be retained. All that can be secured by voting against this unnecessary Bill.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: My goodness me: until the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) spoilt it all by saying that the Opposition would vote against this sensible measure, I was struck by how far

  191
  the Labour party has come—in favour of Trident and sensible nuclear deterrence, for instance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who spoke with common sense, will still be alive after all his Back Benchers who did not hear his speech have read what he said.
  The ninth report of the Defence Select Committee of last Session and the Government's reply to it are mentioned on the Order Paper as relevant to this debate. It was the latest of our annual examinations of the progress of the Trident programme. We have visited Aldermaston more than once, most recently in March 1989, and this year we took evidence from the trade unions and AWE here in Westminster.
  Part V of the latest report deals with the Government's proposals for the contractorisation of AWE. Over the past 10 years, we have had cause repeatedly to express concern about the situation at AWE, and particularly about the implications of manpower shortages there for the Trident programme. This year we reported:
  "the manpower difficulties … have worsened. Unless the remedial measures proposed prove effective, there is now a significant risk that some elements of the warhead programme may fail to meet their scheduled delivery dates."
  It is against this background that the Government have decided to introduce this Bill, and we shall do all we can to give it a fair wind.
  Our report mentions a number of potential anxieties about the contractorisation proposals, many of them expressed most strongly in evidence given us by AWE trade unions, which described the reaction of their members to the proposals as one of dismay. Principal among these anxieties is safety. It was good to hear my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement say that that was paramount among his concerns. The Ministry has assured us that AWE's high safety standards will be maintained after contractorisation, but we were a little worried that, in practice, a contractor might be tempted to cut corners.
  As we pointed out in paragraph 68 of the report:
  "There is clearly some potential contradiction between the notion that new management is required to change the `culture' of AWE, and the argument that safety standards will be inviolate because the staff of AWE will take with them their existing culture."
  Somewhere between the two we must make certain that everyone understands that the old excellent standards must be maintained while the new approach to management, productivity and work changes in accordance with the Government's wishes.
  We have also recently produced a report on MOD's record of radiological protection of service and civilian personnel. In our 12th report of last Session, published in November, we had occasion to examine AWE again. We welcomed the recent improvement in recruitment of health physicists to make up for staff shortages in health physics posts in AWE's safety division, and we recommended that a duty to keep health physics staffing up to strength be included in the AWE management contract. I hope that the Minister can assure me that it will be so included.
  In general terms, we welcome the recent fall in exposure levels of AWE staff—we go into that in detail in the report, and I shall not repeat it now.
  One acid test of whether the contractorisation of AWE is a result of this Bill has improved health and safety environment at AWE will be shown by the extent to which
  192
  recent trends towards ever lower individual and total exposure levels can be maintained. I am hopeful about that, having seen at first hand the progress made at Rosyth in this respect, and we are told that the commercial operators in the dockyards at Devonport have managed to do the same.
  We voiced concern in our report that the compliance office might not have enough staff with the relevant expertise to conduct adequately its monitoring and auditing role. I welcome the assurance in paragraph 14 of the Government's reply that the compliance office will be fully independent and properly resourced. I hope that the Minister will be able to flesh out that assurance with specific facts and figures. In that regard, clause 5 of the Bill is noteworthy, because it gives the Secretary of State funds to meet expenses incurred
  "in assuming responsibility for any liabilities".
  That seems to suggest that the management contractor at AWE will not himself be liable in respect of nuclear safety. Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify that position in his winding-up speech.
  Similarly paragraph 9 of the schedule gives exemption to the contractor from certain sections of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain what is involved and why he thinks that exemption is necessary.
  Our report concluded with these words:
  "It is essential that the move to contractorisation is not rushed and that the details are very fully worked out before the contract is awarded."
  Progress in bringing forward the Bill has been swift, and we can assume that its implementation will be equally swift. The Committee and the House would welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that, in its speed, the Ministry is not neglecting the finer points—the small print—of the contractual terms, because it is upon them that the success of the Government's plans will turn.
  I and my colleagues on the Committee welcome the Bill. However, we shall watch for the points that I have raised, and I hope that the Minister will be able to help us by answering some of them.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: In spite of, or perhaps because of, the typically exiguous remarks by the Minister, I regret that I retain a deep-seated unease about the principle that lies behind the Bill.
  On Second Reading, we are concerned more with principle and rather less with detail. The principle that we ought to bear in mind, above all others, is the legitimate protection of the public interest. We cannot have a debate of this kind without reminding ourselves that nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, and that the responsibility for their deployment and potential use is probably the most awesome of all ministerial responsibilities.
  I am unrepentantly of the view that ministerial responsibility for the development and manufacture of such weapons ought to be retained, to the extent that the atomic weapons establishment should remain in the public domain, and that those who are most directly concerned should remain part of the civil service. I cannot flinch from the conclusion that contractorisation reflects something of a dilution in ministerial responsibility.
  If there have been staff shortages and weaknesses in management—the Select Committee on Defence has

  193
  certainly identified these, and they seem to have been almost a matter of omission—is it really the case that such defects cannot be cured without contractorisation? I do not believe that the case made to support that proposition this afternoon was of the compelling nature that it ought to be to justify the substantial alteration which the Bill proposes.
  I remain of the view that overcoming those defects was, and is, a question of will and resources. If sufficient will and sufficient resource had been made available, there would be no justification for embarking upon the course of action required by the Bill.
  Contractorisation, whether on an interim or a full basis, seems to be an acknowledgement of failure, and we should not allow this occasion to pass without drawing that to the attention of the public. It seems inevitable that, while research and development will be matters of contract, safety issues will continue to be controversial. We may find ourselves in a curious situation. If there is a failure to meet the standards of safety set down by the compliance officer, the Government may find that they have to go to the civil court to ensure that the standard of safety specified in the contract is met. Alternatively, if the Government withhold stage payments in the contract, on the grounds that standards of safety are not being met, they may find that they are the subject of civil litigation.
  In my submission, it is a curious notion that something as fundamental and important as development of and research into nuclear weapons could be the subject of civil litigation. At a time of international tension, that could hardly inspire confidence in the capacity of the Government of the day, whatever their colour, to deal with the interests of the people.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the possibility of civil litigation being used to impose health and safety requirements. As I understand it, the whole purpose of the exemptions in the schedule is to put the company outside the bounds of civil litigation. The company will be able to invoke Crown immunity because it will get that from the schedules. The company will be exempt from 13 Acts of Parliament, ranging from the Explosives Act 1875 through to more recent Acts.
  Mr. Campbell: There may well be exemptions in the schedule of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but if there is a dispute between the Government and the contractor as to whether or not the contractor is fulfilling his contractual obligations with regard to meeting safety standards, the only way that it can be enforced will be to sue on the contract. That seems to be a curious position in which to find ourselves.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): The compliance office, which will be very strong, will have the right to cancel a contract if safety regulations are not met. The exemptions in the schedule will preserve the situation as it is at present. The establishments are seeking no greater indemnity than they have at the moment.
  Mr. Campbell: While I accept the Minister's second point, as it seems to reflect accurately the terms of the Bill, we should still direct our attention to the first. Let us suppose that the compliance officer says, "You have failed to meet the necessary standards of safety. This contract is
  194
  cancelled." Can one imagine that the contractor will walk quietly away and say, "Tough luck. That was one that didn't quite work out?" When we consider the sums of money involved, it is inevitable that the contactor will seek recourse to law in such circumstances. Therefore, we would find ourselves disputing issues of this nature in the High Court of Justice in the Strand. That is why it seems to me that, in the public interest, this matter should stay firmly and irreconcilably in the public domain.
  I think that I am correct in saying that there is no statutory reference to the compliance officer within the terms of the Bill. What will be his authority? What powers will he have? What sanctions will he be able to exercise, other than those provided by the terms of the contract that the contractor enters into?
  Let us suppose that there were a breach of safety. If the compliance officer has the right to say, "Meet the necessary standard," but the contractor declines to do so, what will the compliance officer do then? Will he cancel the contract? If we were three years into a five-year contract, at a time of international tension, is it conceivable that the Government would be party to the cancellation of a contract for the research, development and production of weapons which are of such significance—whether one is in favour of them or against? Once the Government were committed to any one contractor it seems to me that the contractor would be in a position of extraordinary strength and influence. The Government would essentially be at the mercy of the contractor.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who opened the debate on behalf of the Labour party, is no longer in the Chamber. The truth of the matter is that, if contractorisation takes place, no Government, whatever their colour, are likely to reverse it. The decision on the Bill which will be taken by the House will stand for a very long time, because the disruption which would necessarily be caused by moving the atomic weapons research establishment back into the civil service would be so great that no Government could properly contemplate it.
  I have no particular allegiance to the trade unions that have been party to the discussions that preceded the Bill; I am bound to say, however, that all the evidence suggests that their responses displayed considerable maturity and responsibility. It is a pity that their proposals for a "next steps" or defence support agency have found so little favour with the Government. Perhaps the Minister will say more about that when he winds up.
  The hon. Member for Clackmannan referred to the United States experience. In my view, the United States experience of Government-owned, contractor-operated atomic weapons activities hardly inspires confidence, and the Rocky Flats establishment does not strike me as a model that we should seek to emulate—any more than the standards of management at Chernobyl would have satisfied the civilian nuclear energy industry in this country.
  Government-owned, contractor-operated activities may well suit the environment of the United States. We know that that environment allows for much more scrutiny. The armed services committees of both Houses of Congress have far greater powers than the Select Committee on Defence in the House of Commons, and members of those Houses have much more access to information than British Members of Parliament. We have only to consult the index of, for instance, Jane's Defence Weekly to see—week in, week out—what contracts have

  195
  been placed in the United States, and how much is involved. When contracts are placed by our Ministry of Defence, we are not entitled to be given the details.
  I have no doubt that ministerial responsibility for nuclear weapons, from their development through every conceivable stage, should be unequivocal and unbending. I fear that, if the element of contract is introduced, Ministers' natural response to any criticisms made in the House will be, "It is not us; it is the contractors." To some extent, the responsibility will be sloughed off. That is not in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom, which is why my hon. Friends and I will vote against Second Reading of the Bill.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will forgive me if I do not take up the points that he has just made. This is a short debate, and I know that many of my hon. Friends want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Committee stage will provide an opportunity for hon. Members to explore and challenge his remarks.
  I welcome the chance to speak this evening, simply because I have considerable constituency interests. Aldermaston is only a few hundred yards—and Burghfield only a few miles—outside the Basingstoke constituency. Many hundreds of my constituents work at those establishments: during the past 12 months or so I have received many representations about the Government's proposals, and have listened with the greatest care to every point put to me.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) is not attending the debate: he is recovering from an operation, and I know that the House will wish him well. I was in touch with him recently, however, and I have discovered that his views coincide with mine to a significant degree. I believe that his constituents, if they read the report of the debate, will wish to know that.
  Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, I have no quarrel with contractorisation in principle—provided that the worst instances of the United States experience can be avoided, and provided that my constituents will not suffer as a result of its implementation. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for reassurances in regard to points with which we are both familiar from the voluminous correspondence that has passed between us, as well as correspondence from his predecessor.
  My first point relates to safety and security. I accept that the two consultative documents provided considerable reassurances. Both stressed the role of the compliance office, which is clearly a debatable matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, described—and knows far better than I—the further reassurances given in the Committee's ninth report, Session 1989–90, page 29, question 226. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will demonstrate to my constituents that their fears about safety and security under contractorisation are misplaced.
  196
  My second point concerns pensions. I am encouraged by assurances given to me by my hon. Friend the Minister in correspondence—for instance, that
  "new pension arrangements … will match those of the PCSPS as closely as possible"
  and that
  "the accrued pension rights in the PCSPS of staff transferred will not be lost".
  The ball is in my hon. Friend's court, however: he must give my constituents further assurances that they need not worry on this score.
  My third point concerns redundancy. My hon. Friend's predecessor wrote to me on 8 June:
  "On the question of redundancy rights, I can give a categorical assurance that the length of service before contractorisation will count fully towards the calculation of redundancy benefit".
  I hope that my hon. Friend will stand by that.
  I am prepared to accept that contractorisation may be the way forward for the AWE, but I cannot accept it if it fails to safeguard the interests of my constituents. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury would wish me to make that point on his behalf, too.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Like the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), I have a constituency interest in the atomic weapons establishment—in my case, a Cardiff interest. The AWE is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones)—who has been seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but several hundred of my constituents work at AWE Llanishen, which the Minister visited only last week. Perhaps he will say a word about his visit when he winds up the debate.
  What worries the Opposition is that the Government's approach is based entirely on one of those "quickie" principles: "If it moves, privatise it; if it does not, privatise it until it does." The Government have not devoted sufficient thought to what constitutes the real problems, and what is the most apposite solution—as distinct from the one that comes immediately to mind.
  We are also worried about the hypocrisy of a Government who attempt to gain the alleged advantages of private-sector management of production and research facilities on the four sites involved, on grounds of flexibility, while at the same time trying to preserve all the Crown immunities that go with being in the public sector. It cannot be right for the House to be presented with a Bill that puts in private management but retains the part that is most convenient to the Government—the absence of any threat of independent challenge by regulatory authorities in the event of a breach, or alleged breach, of health and safety or environmental legislation by which other private firms must abide.
  Let me take another example from the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, and even closer to mine; just across the river, in fact. Amersham International also deals with hazardous toxic substances—in this instance, radioactive—and it moved from the public to the private sector. It has to abide by all the health and safety and environmental legislation. It is open to inspection by the National Rivers Authority or the environmental health department of Cardiff city council in respect of some of its emissions, and by the inspectorate of pollution in respect of air emissions.

  197
  None of that will apply to the atomic weapons establishment at Llanishen. It will all be dealt with by the compliance officer under a completely untested, cosy in-house arrangement. The compliance officer's duty is not simply to ascertain whether a naughty has happened in the plant, which would be a breach of the environmental and health and safety provisions if it happened in the private sector.
  The compliance officer will also have the duty of ascertaining whether the establishment is giving good service in terms of production. He or she will therefore have a jumbled job, trying to judge whether the employees of the organisation are doing a good job and earning their bonuses, whether for production or quality, as well as carrying out all the other functions relating to possible breaches of the environmental and health and safety legislation, if such legislation were to apply—which it will not—to the privatised GOCO, or government-owned, contractor-operated, plant.
  Anybody who knows the Cardiff area will be aware of the problem with the location of AWE Llanishen. Although I have never visited or driven past Aldermaston and Burghfield, I believe that they are located in relatively leafy suburbs and that there are no highly built-up residential areas right at their edge. Cardiff is different. The atomic weapons establishment at Llanishen is in the middle of densely populated residential suburbs in a city of 300,000 people. That is probably unique for a nuclear weapons facility in the western world. In addition, AWE Llanishen is surrounded by other work places, such as the tax office. Thousands of people spend every day bang next door to the production facility at Llanishen.
  I grew up in that area during the war when almost everybody in Cardiff had a relative working at what was then the Shell factory. Over 20,000 people worked at the royal ordnance factory then. During a war, people put up with a lot in terms of decisions about the location of such sites which they might not tolerate today. I stress that that plant is surrounded by residential areas in a city of 300,000 people.
  That is why we are concerned about the reputation of the GOCO facilities in the United States, where the idea has come from. We want to know on the basis of what record the House is being asked to accept that GOCO management is better than the present public sector civil service Ministry of Defence management. Given their record in the United States, GOCOs are causing us considerable concern. The Government have a tendency to follow United States management devices without giving them proper and serious consideration. We are concerned that the Government have not properly thought through whether GOCO, which has a long tradition in the United States, will work satisfactorily in this country. Although it has a long tradition in the United States, it also has a long tradition of causing problems.
  The film "Silkwood", which I seem to remember watching on television last Christmas, was a story about something going wrong in a GOCO facility in the Okie country, in the Appalachians, where serious problems arose because Kerr McGee, the GOCO contractor in that case, consistently breached all manner of health and safety and environmental legislation in the push continually to beat nuclear production records so that the organisation could meet its contracts and make good profits on them. Anybody who saw that film and who lives in the Cardiff area is naturally concerned.
  198
  I turn now to the attempt to apply GOCO in this country. How many people have expressed a strong interest at the interim stage, which has now been going on for two months? On an interim basis and without the benefit of this primary legislation, we hear that the Government have appointed Hunting-BRAE to act as their interim, semi-contractorised management contractors to run the four establishments. Nobody had previously heard of Hunting-BRAE. That firm was put together ad hoc, being formed out of one division of Hunting Engineering plus Brown and Root from Houston in Texas, plus—oddly enough—another public sector company in the Atomic Energy Authority.
  Hunting-BRAE is therefore part public and part private. One might say that it is almost a cross-breed between a hybrid and a mongrel. Nobody had previously heard of Hunting-BRAE; it has no previous record. Although all its existing parent companies might have good records in their own industries—and although they have gained the confidence of Ministers—they are not names on which one could make a judgment about whether they are suitable to be given the contracts, at least for the present two years, and presumably then to win the long-term five to seven-year contract that will be available if the Bill is enacted.
  Brown and Root has been famous for being close to the United States Government. When Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson became President and Vice-President of the United States in 1960, an apocryphal conversation is supposed to have taken place when victory was announced, in which President Kennedy—the first Roman Catholic President of the United States—was supposed to have said, "Right, now we can start to build that tunnel from the White House to the Vatican", and Lyndon Johnson is supposed to have replied, "Yes, as long as Brown and Root get the contract."
  Although Brown and Root is the flagship of civil and mechanical engineering industry in Texas, we have never heard of Hunting-BRAE. It is not a household name about which one can say, "We know that, if Hunting-BRAE is in charge, everthing will be okay." We cannot say that, because the two associates have never worked together. This is very much a pig in a poke. There is no transparent chain of command from the managing director of Hunting-BRAE, so we cannot say that we know who to go to or whose backside to kick if something goes wrong. We shall be relying on an untried consortium and on the untried compliance officer mechanism if things go wrong. Naturally, that concerns people in Cardiff.
  The Cardiff plant does not deal with radioactive substances. By and large, it deals with beryllium, which is a highly toxic substance. The Cardiff plant carries out precision engineering operations to provide high-quality, space-age components for nuclear warheads, rather than being involved in the final assembly or in the plutonium-related facilities in the manufacture of nuclear warheads. The work at the Cardiff plant is absolutely critical.
  The city of Cardiff, of which I represent a quarter, wants to know what would happen if there was the sort of corner-cutting about which we have heard in connection with GOCOs in the United States. What would happen if a fire broke out and if a beryllium-enriched toxic cloud wafted over the whole city? You will be aware, Mr. Speaker—if you are not aware, I should make both you and the House aware—that although beryllium is not

  199
  radioactive, it is one of the most toxic substances on the face of this earth. Its effects are similar to those produced by asbestos and the effects of berylliosis on the lungs are comparable to those of asbestosis. Any increased fire hazard risk, as a result of corner cutting resulting from the pressure on management to earn bonuses, which would come about if the Bill were enacted, must be of enormous concern to any hon. Member who represents part of a city such as Cardiff, which has a nuclear weapons facility right in its centre.
  We are anxious to know what the Minister can say about his observation that this primary legislation may assist the Cardiff factory in its ability to win more outside work. That is what he said to the press. We are mystified by the relationship between the Bill and that observation. It is no doubt true—it has been proved true in the past few years—that any plant, such as that at Cardiff which has enormous precision engineering skills, can and should win more outside work. The Cardiff factory made complex autoclave facilities for the national health service when nuclear weapons work was quiet. It carried out work that few other plants could carry out.
  It is of much concern that the introduction of specific single-purpose management with one objective—simply to speed up the production rates of nuclear weapons—is unlikely to contribute to diversification from sole dependence on nuclear weapons. The Minister mentioned that earlier, and perhaps he will return to it when he replies to the debate.
  I should be glad to hear any explanation of how Crown immunity can be compatible with diversification from nuclear weapons production. If a private sector company that is competing with AWE Llanishen for precision engineering work has to abide by modern health and safety and environmental legislation whereas AWE Llanishen does not, one can imagine the complaints that will be made to the Office of Fair Trading.
  I rest on the point that the hypocrisy of the Government must be exposed. They are trying to gain all the supposed advantages of privatisation, but we must bear in mind the disadvantages that we shall suffer as a residential area with this facility sited right in the middle of it.
  6 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: I support the Bill, but I have several reservations, about which I hope to receive some reassurance, probably in Committee.
  Many of Aldermaston's employees live in my constituency, in the villages of Tadley, Baughurst, Kingsclere and Overton. Indeed, the fence of the AWE forms the boundary of my constituency. I am sure that the House will therefore understand why I have a particular interest in certain parts of the Bill.
  We live in dangerous times, with the unhappy prospect that, in the not-too-distant future irresponsible people will be able to have nuclear weapons. It is vital that our nuclear weapons are up to date and are delivered on time to ensure that, in a few years' time, we are not blackmailed. I see the Bill as a major step forward in achieving the production of nuclear weapons on time.
  The staff of the atomic weapons establishment are the most loyal and dedicated to be found in any industry in the
  200
  United Kingdom. Their skills and professionalism are outstanding, but they work against a background of dangerous substances. It is of unique importance that there is trust and commitment, especially to safety. Many of the staff who work at Aldermaston are exasperated by the civil service bureaucracy. Given the factory's unique operation, it is as inappropriate to civil service bureaucracy as one can imagine. I quote from the letter of a constituent who works there, who speaks of
  "at every turn having to contend with the rigours of bureaucracy which has increased enormously since transferring from the UKAEA. This is so demoralising for team leaders and project managers with endless paperwork and delays in sometimes getting the simplest of jobs accomplished."
  It would not be possible to sum up more neatly or more completely the problem and the exasperation that the Bill will enable the AWE to break away from, thereby offering it substantial benefits.
  Wherever there is change, there is always anxiety among the staff and people affected by it. I have some reservations, to which I need to receive answers either now or in Committee. We are told that most of the jobs will be secure. One cannot definitely tell whether there may be some sporadic redundancies. Will the staff be any worse off if they are made redundant than they would have been had the existing employment arrangements continued? Will staff suffer any loss in their prospective pensions? That is of particular relevance to the older members of staff, who already can identify and look forward to a pattern of pension, some indexation and a standard of living in their retirement. Will that be at risk in any way?
  In opening, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to a further consultative document on pensions that he will publish. Will it be published before the Committee stage? By that stage, will we know what is in the consultative document and what are the Government's views on it? I draw particular attention to the position of the ex-UKAEA staff, who have had one change in pension arrangements. I want a clear assurance that they will be no worse off as a result of the changes that are being made.
  May we have an assurance that staff vetting will be as stringent as it has been in the past, and who will pay for it, which is of some relevance?
  The most important of those factors is safety, not only in the plant and for its employees but for the residents of Tadley and Baughurst. The safety of the wider area as well as of those who work in the establishment is of much importance.
  We must ensure that no corners are cut on safety. We have been given assurances on that, and I value those assurances. We know about the compliance officer's role, but can we be told more about the powers and the independence that he will have, because that, too, is particularly relevant?
  Having expressed those perfectly natural anxieties on behalf of my constituents, I give the Bill a fair wind and will support its Second Reading, but I seek assurances on those matters both now and in Committee.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am glad to have the opportunity of following my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). I listened to his description of the factories that are adjacent to his constituency, which apparently are close to residential areas. In my brief remarks—I appreciate that I must be

  201
  brief to ensure that every hon. Member has the opportunity to contribute to the debate—I shall be most concerned with ROF Llanishen. I am guilty of using the old initials; it is taking me some time to catch up with the new ones.
  ROF Llanishen has been very much part of our community in Cardiff. It is in a residential area, but it is quite fanciful to describe it as a nuclear weapons facility. It is a high-precision engineering factory, but in no grammatical sense of the phrase could it be described as a nuclear weapons facility.
  My comments essentially relate to that factory in my constituency and to those who work in it. High priority should be accorded to those who work in it. These are vital defence factories, the prime resources of which are their employees. Their skills and dedication make the quality of that important work force.
  All those who are involved in this matter agree that change is necessary. I understand that the trade unions that represent the work force in the factories agree that change must be brought about, although they do not necessarily agree with the changes embodied in the Bill.
  The Bill offers opportunities for better use of those vital defence factories and better employment for the people who work there. I see no reason why anyone employed in the factories should be worse off merely because of the change to contractorisation.
  As recently as 2.45 this afternoon, I met three of my constituents who work at ROF Llanishen and who wanted to tell me their fears about the future, despite the assurances that they had been given. They said that the Bill did not adequately cover pensions and redundancies and that there were no guarantees about redundancies, contrary to their present position while they are part of the civil service. They said, in the same mood as those who say that change in the factories is necessary, that the only difference between their view and the Government's proposals was the loss of their civil service status.
  I know that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will be applied and that they will essentially relate to pay and conditions of employment, but significant differences affect pensions and redundancy terms because of the differences between the civil service and the outside world.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement visited ROF Llanishen on 12 December. I know from those who work there that his visit was appreciated by those he met. They put these very points about pensions and redundancy terms and he sought to reassure them. He said that he expected the pensions and redundancy terms to be at least equal to the present provisions. I understand that he promised to consider their concerns further and even to consider whether it was possible or appropriate to change the Bill.
  I know that my hon. Friend will give every consideration to the representations that hon. Members and those who work in the factories have made. Any reassurance which he can give the workers must be good and right. If he finds it possible to embody such changes in the Bill, that would be welcomed not only by me but by everyone who works at ROF Llanishen.
  Safety is the paramount issue in Cardiff and at the other factories not only for the staff—although, naturally, they are the first to be concerned about it—but for all those who live near them, including my family, which is a neighbour
  202
  of ROF Llanishen. I have always known that that high-precision engineering factory operates to the highest standards. Independent monitoring has shown that it always operates not only within the safety limits but to practically the highest possible such limits—tests have shown that that factory sticks within 1 per cent. of the maximum permissible limits. Obviously, if possible, we should aim for even higher limits, not a lowering of those limits. Those who work at ROF Llanishen are concerned that contractorisation might lead to a different approach to standards and safety measurements. That must not happen.
  My hon. Friend the Minister offered us the reassurance that there will be a compliance officer who will maintain the Ministry of Defence standards which are presently in force. That officer must have all the resources necessary to ensure that he maintains all those standards, so that those who work in the factories and those of us who live outside them are completely reassured that they will continue to operate to the highest standards.
  With those important reservations, I give at least a cautious welcome to the Bill.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Tony Durant: I am pleased to speak on the Bill. I do so because, like my colleagues, I have constituents who live in my constituency but work at Aldermaston and Burghfield. I also speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), who represents the area and who, as many hon. Members know, has had a kidney transplant. I am pleased to report that he is mending satisfactorily. We hope that he will return soon. In fact, I have been doing his work for him, but he is now dealing with his own letters, which is one load off my back. He is taking a great interest in these matters.
  Aldermaston and Burghfield are highly rated organisations of a very high standard. They integrate well into the local community and employ a large number of people n the area. All my references to them over the years have been based on their high calibre. However, I support the principle of contractorisation, perhaps because I feel, having heard from Ministers, that there is no alternative.
  I was not entirely satisfied by the answers by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the question why did we not go down the route of having executive agencies. They are part of the Government's proposals in several parts of the civil service. I am still not convinced of the reasons why we did not leave the whole organisation within the civil service. That would have been a better way to proceed, and I should be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about that matter.
  My constituents, like those of other hon. Members, are concerned about safety. Are we sure that the contractors will be conscious of safety? This is a volatile, dangerous activity. The present staff have high technical skills. In Reading, I have looked into the incidence of leukaemia among children who live in the area. Nothing has been proved, although there have been many research projects. The local population are worried about this activity being undertaken by the factories. They are dangerous places, and we must be sensitive to the concerns of local people.
  I am also worried about security. After all, plenty of people in the world would like to get hold of some of the secrets of the establishment. It seems that other hon.

  203
  Members were taken all over it, but I was not allowed to go very far. It has been opened up a little, but some of the secrets have rightly been kept. The establishment should be kept as secure as possible. What will happen when the business is run by a contractor rather than those who work there at present?
  The staff are worried about the future of their pension scheme, as I know from letters which I have received. In 1987, the trade unions and the management encouraged them to join pension schemes rather than to opt out, and they all did. But they are now worried that, having taken that decision, they will be in difficulties. What is the future of those who were in the UKAEA pension scheme? It is not a very good scheme. One of my constituents, for whom I have been battling for years, transferred from that scheme and has had difficulty in getting his money. I am anxious that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should clear up the anxieties which have been expressed.
  Those staff who joined the principal civil service pension scheme would like some reassurances—rightly so, because their pension is their future, they work at the establishment and they live in the area. Although it is a nice area in which to live, the work position is not as good as it was. They want to keep their jobs rather than be made redundant. I should like the place to continue to be a successful establishment. I am concerned about those matters and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reassure me.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill, which is a welcome and timely measure. As other hon. Members have said, it deals with an important subject. We live in an age in which there has been a proliferation of nuclear weapons and in perhaps as little as 10 years' time, there may be as many as 15 or 20 nuclear powers. It is extremely important that our nuclear deterrent is kept up to date, and Aldermaston and its satellite facilities are central to that.
  Five years ago, I had the privilege of working briefly as a project manager for a firm of management consultants on a project at the atomic weapons research establishment at Aldermaston and I very much enjoyed the experience. I hasten to add that I now have no financial connection with any body or organisation connected with Aldermaston, with any commercial ventures with which it may now be involved or with any other defence contractor. I found it an interesting experience and I was extremely impressed by the calibre of the scientists at Aldermaston while I was studying the possible contractorisation of one facility.
  I welcome the proposal to move to a Government-owned, contractor-operated arrangement for three reasons, two of which have already been covered succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), following my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks. One reason is the need to get away from civil service pay and conditions for specialised, high-grade work in an area in which living costs are exceptionally high. Within the framework of national pay bargaining, it is impossible to deal properly with pay requirements.
  204
  The second reason is the need to get away from civil service procedures where possible. Some procedures derive inevitably from the requirement for safety, which has been mentioned so often. Other procedures—I heard a lot about this when I was at Aldermaston—are just sheer bureaucracy, such as the need to have continual meetings, to produce minutes of those meetings and to comment on the minutes. There should be scope to get away from that.
  The third reason, which has not been touched on, is also important and the heart of my contribution is concerned with the contractual arrangements. The two facilities in the world that are closest to the scientific side—I stress the word "scientific" because there is a far larger production side at the sites involved—are the Los Alamos facility and the Lawrence Livermore laboratory in America. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, they are run by the contractor operation of the university of California. That arrangement goes back to the second world war when Los Alamos played its famous role in developing the first atomic bomb. Apart from the appointment of the chief executive, the key part that the university of California plays in its arm's-length relationship with those two facilities is the system of peer review.
  Under that system, eminent scientists from the university of California who are not directly involved in the programme periodically sit down with the scientists at the facility, study their work over an extended period and access it. That is very motivating for the scientists concerned. When I was at Aldermaston, it was raised as a complaint that nothing similar happened there. There are nominally a number of Government committees that look at such matters at arm's length. They are sometimes—but not always—manned by people of comparable expertise.
  The fact that every scientist once every one or two years has the opportunity to sit eyeball to eyeball with other scientists—and one or two are Nobel prize winners—who will look at their work is a motivating experience. That system also pulls out the occasional rotten apple in the barrel and there are one or two of those even in the best organisations. The scientific side at Aldermaston is extremely good. We must never let the well-publicised problems on the production side detract from the fact that the Aldermaston scientific side has a reputation that is not only world class, but comparable with that of its American counterparts, which have 15 or 20 times as much to spend.
  The expression "GOCO" can mean many different things. I visited the successful GOCO shipyard in Sydney, which is the best of the Australian naval dockyards. Sometimes the contractor runs things from top to bottom, as is the case with the Rocky Flats arrangement, the low technology end of the nuclear side in America. Alternatively, there can be a more arm's-length strategic arrangement which the university of California has with the two laboratories that I mentioned.
  I firmly believe that for the scientific side at Aldermaston—the minority, but the most important end—it is best to go for the latter arrangement. It is essential that our key scientists there should continue to be Government representatives in the international arena. That is not a quibble about words. In the nuclear business, collaboration—principally with the Americans, but increasingly with the French—is essential. We cannot afford to do everything ourselves. I have it on good authority that it will not be acceptable to those with whom we deal in America or in France to have people arriving at international conferences and being billed as employees of

  205
  a contractor, rather than as Government representatives. It will be essential for those people to be covered not only by conditions relating to secrecy—which has already been dealt with adequately—but by conditions on commercially confidential intellectual property rights.
  American and, increasingly, British contractors will not be willing to pass information to people who are not in some way tied to Government. It does not matter to whom they belong as employees. The crucial point is that their conditions of service must involve the key areas of secrecy and of intellectual property rights, and when people go to international conferences, they must bear a label saying "Government representative". That is the case with the key scientists at the two American laboratories although, technically, they are employees of the university of California. That is an important point; it is not just a quibble.
  The Bill is splendid. For a number of reasons, it is right that we should make a GOCO out of Aldermaston. However, it is important that we get the contractual relationship right at the scientific end of the operation so that those who work in the key scientific posts—who may be doing the more sensitive work and who are oriented towards a scientific environment—maintain and enjoy their present international status through continuing to be recognised as Government representatives at international conferences abroad. They must also continue to be subject to their present constraints on the passing of knowledge. I commend the Bill to the House and I will vote for the Second Reading.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: As every hon. Member who has participated this afternoon has said, the Bill is extremely important for many reasons. On Second Reading, we look at those reasons briefly, as we shall go into detail on them in Committee. Many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, have said that they will support the Bill, but with strong reservations in some areas. I accept that many of them said that because they have substantial constituency interests. It is right that they should look after the workers who live in their constituencies. I only wish that on some occasions they had looked after the interests of workers who live in my constituency. That was not to be and, sadly, this Friday we shall see the end of the last coal mine in the Rhondda valley. It is the end of a great era in British history. But there we are. Self-interest is as good a motive as any in politics. If people come to our side through self-interest, who am I to deny that?
  I am sure that Conservative Members will be rushing to fill the Committee and I look forward to their support. I know that the Government Whip is greatly relieved at the possibility of having all these worthy gentlemen sitting on the Committee. He will not have to dragoon anyone. Of course, if they support our amendments, the Government Whip will be in greater trouble. I am looking forward to the Committee and, if necessary, to doing battle with the Under-Secretary of State. His unfailing courtesy will mean that he will listen to our arguments. However, as I have always said, we win the arguments but lose the votes.
  The Bill is a response to incompetence. That has been acknowledged and was illustrated by the hon. Member for
  206
  Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who had the honesty and decency to acknowledge that he was part of the incompetence for a brief period. We will forgive him.
  Mr. Brazier: The House understands that the hon. Gentleman has to fill his speech somehow, but he should not throw random barbs around the Chamber. He must have heard me say that Aldermaston has on its scientific side a world-class reputation disproportionate to the amount of money it spends.
  Mr. Rogers: Yes. I often wondered what the hon. Gentleman was doing there.
  The Bill is a response to the Government's incompetence. They are acknowledging that they cannot run the atomic weapons establishments. It is an open and honest acknowledgment. The enormous criticism of the Government's performance in the past year or so is finalised in the Bill. It is a bolt-hole Bill. They are running away from the problem by saying, "You do it." They are hoping to offload the problem on to a private company. Of course, the private company does not mind because it will receive substantial resources from the Government. It will probably be a substantial contributor to the Conservative party, but there we are. That is called the recirculation of Government money.
  The Government will have to face the same problems because they will not go away. The problems of today will be the same next year and the year after. The difficulty is that there will be one stage in between and the Government may have more problems in the future than they have now.
  It is strange that in the proposals the problems have now been identified. On the Conservative Benches are all the business men, managers and those such as the hon. Member for Canterbury who visit such establishments. I should have thought that once the problems have been identified and once it has been acknowledged that they are not intractable, one should just apply oneself and resolve them. The Government are not doing that. They are saying, "We are incapable of managing these institutions and running the business, so please do it for us." This is privatisation in a real sense. Talking about contractorisation obfuscates the truth. It is a Government-owned, contractor-operated privatisation.
  We shall be looking closely at how the capital assets are to be controlled. I am not sure whether they will be handed over to the company or whether they will be in the form of a lease. It is a little ambiguous in the Bill, but we shall pursue it later. I wonder whether the company knows what a shambles some of the buildings are. Is it aware of the Government's incompetence in relation to construction contracts, particularly the A90 buildings constructed specifically for the Trident warhead?
  We are not talking about the privatisation of an engineering company or a consumer commodity such as water or electricity. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, this is the privatisation of the means of production of the most fearful weapons known to mankind. I honestly and sincerely believe that it should not be in private hands. Also, it is the privatisation of the production of material at the very frontiers of technology, not only in engineering and electronics but in physics and chemistry with potential dangers for safety within and without the establishments. We heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friend the

  207
  Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) talk of the serious problems that could occur in the Cardiff residential area if there happened to be an escape of, for example, beryllium gases. That is possible unless security and safety are tightly controlled.
  Someone said to me, "Why are you bothered about this Bill? Many weapons are produced by private companies." Of course, under this Government, with the giveaway of Royal Ordnance, almost all the production of weapons is now in private hands. This is different. We are not talking about aeroplanes, ships, tanks or weapon delivery systems, but about the ultimate explosives being constantly enhanced through research at these establishments.
  We shall wish to discuss many issues in Committee, not least those raised, rightly, by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) about the precise position on pensions. Other hon. Members on both sides have mentioned the security of employment of those presently working in the establishments. Will they have jobs for the period of a contract? For my sins, I happen to be a geologist by profession and I worked for some time on contracts that were for a specific period.
  If we give a contract to a private company, will we be telling it to take on workers under a specific contract, or will it be told, "Treat your workers as you like"? Will the Government wash their hands of the workers once they have been handed over to the private contractors? Is that what it is about? We shall pursue that matter in Committee. Conservative Members are now feeling the pinch that has been felt over the past 10 years under this Government by hon. Members in Wales, Scotland and the north of England because substantial numbers of their constituents may be thrown out of work.
  As I said, the physical framework and fabric—the buildings and surroundings—of the atomic weapons establishments are in an appalling condition. The Government know that that is so. At Aldermaston we have had one of the most appalling examples of the Government's inefficiency and mismanagement of the defence industry. The construction of the A90 buildings is a saga of cost and time overruns, overcharging and profiteering. It is a sad and sorry mess and, in the near future, I am sure that it will lead to criminal charges. Not even this Government can sweep that amount of dirt under the carpet.
  The Minister knows about that, because the information has been laid before the Ministry of Defence. It has not acted upon it yet, but it will eventually because it will have to. The problem is not just the buildings and problems with the roof, but items such as stainless steel tanks that have welding problems and may, for example, allow the emission of toxic gases into the atmosphere. Similar gases may be released into the Cardiff area.
  That work was done to British Nuclear Fuels specifications, was privately constructed and inspected and approved by the Ministry of Defence yet it had to be done all over again because it was unsafe. Who picked up the bill for the extra millions of expenditure? The taxpayer. That does not fill me with confidence about the proposals in the Bill for the production, the supervision of both performance and safety, and the ultimate delivery of the
  208
  finished product—the nuclear warhead—on time. I am at a loss to understand how some of the proposals will operate, and we shall explore them in Committee.
  Another point that we shall examine in Committee is the relationship of sub-contractors within the contracts. In paragraph 303 of this year's defence estimates the Government said:
  "On all contracts worth more than £1 million we review with the prime contractor his plans for awarding sub-contract work, paying special attention to sub-contracts to his subsidiaries."
  Where in the Bill is that assurance carried through to this contractorisation? Will the Government inspect subcontractors or will they simply hand over inspection to the contractors? I am worried about not only the health and safety aspect but the performance of sub-contractors within the overall contracts.
  Incidentally, I noticed that in paragraph 304 of the estimate, the Government said:
  "We firmly believe in the advantages of prime contractors managing projects on our behalf … Taut contracts with firm or fixed prices and the use of payments linked to achievements give the prime contractor a clear interest in speedy and efficient development and production."
  That is quite a departure for the Government. I am not sure how they will achieve that aim. They have never done so in the past 10 years.
  During the opening speech by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, I, like several other hon. Members, was disappointed by his response to a question about consultation with the trade union movement. He had an absolute ideological block. A gate dropped and he said, "No, we will not consult." The Minister was at pains to say that only the views of Members of Parliament could be considered. His words were, "Parliament is supreme." That is ironic because the only reason why we are discussing this matter tonight is that the Government are determined to pass the AWEs out of the control of Parliament. On one aspect, the Minister beats his breast about the strength and supremacy of this place, yet the Government spend all their time moving responsibility for issues such as this out of this Chamber. Therefore, they make public accountability even more difficult.
  Sir David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman seems to have misconstrued what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said. My hon. Friend said that consultation in Committee could be only with Members of Parliament. Clearly, that is correct.
  Mr. Rogers: Yes. I know that that is what the Minister hedged back on. But those of us who know the Minister and some of the Conservative Members present readily identify the ideological block which arose as soon as the words "trade unions" were mentioned.
  The Minister also gave some reasons for the exemptions in the schedule. A Conservative Member, not I, said that he did not find the reasons convincing. Nor do Opposition Members. The privileges and immunities which clause 3 extends to the new GOCOs are matters which we shall examine closely in Committee. We give the Minister warning now that we might spend long hours on the schedule, because its effect is to exempt the AWE from most of the controls that would apply to privately owned factories.
  It is intended that 13 Acts of Parliament will be suspended including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Explosives Act 1923 and the Planning

  209
  (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. I am not yet convinced that the new compliance body is capable of protecting the public interest. The exemptions may protect the Crown—that is what they are for—but that is of little help to people who work in or live near the AWEs. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, we shall want to examine the legal basis of the compliance office.
  I have taken my allocation of time. As I said, the proposals are the Government's response to their incompetence and inability to run the AWEs. We believe, as do some Conservative Members, that there are better ways to resolve the problems. We shall oppose the measure here and in Committee.
  6.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): This has been a useful debate and in the time available I shall seek to respond to the points raised. If I cannot do so, I shall write to hon. Members on the matters which they raised. I look forward to the careful scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. I am encouraged to feel that we might survey at great leisure the highways and byways of the Rhondda constituency. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has much to teach us about his constituency.
  This is a technical Bill and it must be argued closely. I shall listen carefully to the points made in Committee, because it is important in a Bill of this nature to get it absolutely right. I pay tribute right at the beginning of my speech to the people who work at the AWEs. I have had the privilege of meeting some of them and I shall meet more. They are dedicated people. Many have worked in the establishments for many years, serving the country. I recognise their skill and dedication and, as I shall describe later, we intend fully to protect their position.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) asked about consultation. His point was correct. We take seriously the need to consult everyone who might be affected by the Bill. Whenever I go to the establishments, I make sure that I meet the trade union representatives. I shall listen carefully to what they say about the Bill. I want to know their fears, because they represent the people who will be affected. Indeed, many of the points raised by hon. Members in the debate are the same as those made to me by people in the trade unions.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister has given some helpful assurances. The staff at AWE Foulness, some of whom are my constituents, have been confused by the assurances given to them over a period. When consideration of the Bill is completed, would not it be helpful if every member of staff were given a small sheet of paper outlining the various assurances given? If the facts are known it might help to remove many of the uncertainties that have arisen.
  Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have developed good lines of communication. We are sending out to the staff various pieces of paper that explain our approach to pensions and so forth. However, his point about communications is important.
  I remind the House of the purpose of the Bill. At its heart is our need to ensure that we manufacture our
  210
  nuclear deterrent in the most effective way possible. That is our duty at the Ministry of Defence. The operations of the AWEs combine research and development and manufacturing. It is our experience and belief that those activities are managed far better in the private than in the public sector.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) asked why the AWE could not remain an agency. The truth is that agency status does not provide the flexibility to employ the necessary people or full professional management. At the halfway stage, there are only 20 people from the private sector and they cannot bring all the skills to manage this manufacturing facility to the best of their ability. We have learnt the lesson that manufacturing is best done by people in the private sector. In the manufacture of atomic warheads, it is absolutely essential that the assets remain owned by the Government. That is why the Government will continue to own the buildings, machinery and equipment in the establishment. The contract that we draw up with the contractors will define clearly the parameters of their activities.
  Many hon. Members are worried about safety. My hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West., for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Reading, West asked about it. I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West that our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) is making good progress. I also know of his interest. Labour Members have also voiced their anxiety about safety.
  Safety is a key concern. It will be built into the heart of the contract. We already have many safeguards and more will be added after the contract. The safety division, which will continue, will report to the chief executive as it does now. The Health and Safety Executive has an important part to play in the supervision of safety and will continue that activity.
  There is one additional safeguard. At present, the Government own and run the AWE and cannot be prosecuted. After full contractorisation if the employer contravenes the health and safety provisions, he can be prosecuted. There will be an extra layer of safety. A compliance office will be well manned by Ministry of Defence officials and will ensure that all safety aspects are fully complied with. If, by some unimaginably stupid act, the contractor fails to comply with safety as he should, the compliance office can cancel the contract. If it does so, it will be easy for the Ministry of Defence to return the AWE to Government management. That facility exists in the Bill.
  I had an interesting, enjoyable and instructive visit to the plant at Cardiff. The employees there told me that they were worried about safety. They would be absolutely certain to make their fears known if there were any likelihood of their being asked to do anything that was unsafe or involved unsafe practices. Our best policemen for safety are the employees themselves.
  We have had a substantial building programme to improve buildings and make them safer. In contrast to what the hon. Member for Rhondda says, the A90 building has been finished. It is safe and modern. The problems faced there are a good example of how badly managed buildings often are in the public sector.
  Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: I have too little time.
  The ultimate guarantee of safety is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for the safety at AWE.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West asked about radiation. It is important to note that the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment said that radiation from Aldermaston was negligible and could not endanger local people. Everyone who has contact wears dose meters and is monitored. Our aim is to reduce exposure to radiation. At present, one is exposed to less radiation in Aldermaston than in the natural environment—less than 2 mSv a year.
  Hon. Members raised the important matter of security. Obviously, in the production of nuclear warheads everyone has an interest in security. The Ministry of Defence police will look after security, as they do now. They will remain employed by the Ministry of Defence and security will be their responsibility. There will also be proper vetting of everyone who works there by the Ministry of Defence, as there is now.
  All hon. Members are anxious about employment conditions. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said, we shall ensure that the conditions of those who are transferred from the civil service to employment under a contractor will be protected.
  Many of my hon. Friends asked about pensions. I can give the commitment that pensions will be as good in future as they are now. They will be index-linked. Moreover, we shall consult fully. We intend to issue a document in January—we hope to do so before the Committee stage starts—and to discuss it.
  Mr. O'Neill: Can the Minister say whether staff who are taken on after contractorisation will have index-linked pensions?
  Mr. Carlisle: Those people will have access to the same pension scheme as we shall negotiate for the employees who transfer. Moreover, for the first time some employees will be trustees who will help to look after the terms and conditions of the pension fund. We give that guarantee. I know what a worry it is. In the same way, if anyone should be made redundant—I do not in the least expect it, because our programme for the nuclear deterrent is firm—the redundancy terms will be as good as they are now.
  AWE employees will have greater scope. They will be away from bureaucracy and its frustrations. As properly managed people with great skills, they will have greater scope.
  Many other important points were raised and I look forward to debating them in Committee. This is a technical Bill and we must be careful.
  This is a simple Bill, the aim of which is to enable us to be certain of meeting our nuclear weapons programmes in the most effective way possible. It is important for national security. At the same time, we are committed, above all, to the safety and security of the operation and our proposals will ensure that. We shall safeguard the terms and conditions of employment of the work force and ensure that pensions will be just as good as they would have been without this change.
  In reality, management by the private sector within the secure ownership of the Government will lead to a more
  212
  efficient operation and better prospects for the employees. This is a practical and sensible way forward, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 221.

  Division No. 34]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Eggar, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Allason, Rupert

  Evennett, David

  Amos, Alan

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Favell, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Ashby, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Atkinson, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beggs, Roy

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bellingham, Henry

  Franks, Cecil

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fry, Peter

  Benyon, W.

  Gale, Roger

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gardiner, George

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorst, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowis, John

  Grist, Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Ground, Patrick

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grylls, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, William

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hannam, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

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

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butler, Chris

  Hayward, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Chope, Christopher

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Churchill, Mr

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irvine, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jack, Michael

  Cran, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Janman, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Key, Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kilfedder, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Durant, Tony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  213

  Knapman, Roger

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knowles, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knox, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Lang, Ian

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Latham, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Lightbown, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclean, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Speed, Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Speller, Tony

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maples, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stokes, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sumberg, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Miller, Sir Hal

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

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Thorne, Neil

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Trippier, David

  Mudd, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Neale, Gerrard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steve

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Ward, John

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Portillo, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilshire, David

  Price, Sir David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Raffan, Keith

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wood, Timothy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Mr. Irvine Patnick.

  214

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Allen, Graham

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  George, Bruce

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Ashton, Joe

  Gordon, Mildred

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Gould, Bryan

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Graham, Thomas

  Barron, Kevin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bell, Stuart

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bellotti, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Harman, Ms Harriet

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

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Benton, Joseph

  Haynes, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Henderson, Doug

  Blair, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Blunkett, David

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Boateng, Paul

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Boyes, Roland

  Home Robertson, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Howells, Geraint

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Ingram, Adam

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Janner, Greville

  Canavan, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cartwright, John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lambie, David

  Clay, Bob

  Lamond, James

  Clelland, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Leighton, Ron

  Cohen, Harry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Coleman, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Litherland, Robert

  Corbett, Robin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Crowther, Stan

  McAllion, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cummings, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Cunningham, Dr John

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Dalyell, Tam

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dewar, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  McWilliam, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Madden, Max

  Doran, Frank

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Douglas, Dick

  Marek, Dr John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Martlew, Eric

  Eastham, Ken

  Maxton, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Meacher, Michael

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Michael, Alun

  Fatchett, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Fisher, Mark

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Flynn, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Morley, Elliot

  Foster, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Foulkes, George

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fraser, John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mullin, Chris

  Galloway, George

  Murphy, Paul

  215

  Nellist, Dave

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, William

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Snape, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  Soley, Clive

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spearing, Nigel

  Parry, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Patchett, Terry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pendry, Tom

  Stott, Roger

  Pike, Peter L.

  Strang, Gavin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Straw, Jack

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Radice, Giles

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Randall, Stuart

  Turner, Dennis

  Redmond, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wallace, James

  Reid, Dr John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Richardson, Jo

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robertson, George

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rooney, Terence

  Wilson, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winnick, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Martyn Jones and

  Sillars, Jim

  Mr. John McFall.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
7.13 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable the construction and operation of a high quality, high speed, dedicated mainline rail link between Heathrow airport and Paddington station. Heathrow is the largest airport in terms of international passengers handled and, excluding the United States, the largest by any means. That has been achieved with the skill and foresight of those in the aviation industry, who have built on our geographical advantage to create an airport second to none.
Many competitors, particularly in Paris and Amsterdam, would like to take over that lead, and one way to do that is to make provision for better ground access. Access to Heathrow is by motorway, trunk roads and a wide range of public transport, including the London underground. That is currently adequate, but unless there is provision soon for wider choice, congestion and overcrowding will spoil the otherwise excellent and efficient service now provided to the aviation industry.
The idea of a mainline railway link to Heathrow is not new. Powers were obtained in 1967 for a link on the southern region. Those powers lapsed after Government studies led to the Piccadilly line being extended to the airport. In the airports inquiry of 1981 to 1983, the inspector recognised that surface access to Heathrow needed improving, and recommended that a mainline rail link be considered. The Government accepted that, and initiated the Heathrow surface access studies in 1985, with a remit to examine a report on surface links between central London and Heathrow airport. It was from those studies that the current proposals emerged. They involved wide-ranging consultation and examining numerous schemes, different London termini, alternative routes and proposals, both by road and rail.
The joint British Rail-BAA proposal was chosen in 1988 by the Government from a number of competing schemes, and plans have been developed in considerable detail and refined since then. Its construction would immediately help in reducing pressure on the M4, other roads in west London and the crowded Piccadilly line.
The Heathrow Express Railway Bill was deposited in another place in November 1988. After its Second Reading in February 1989—
Mr. Toby Jessel: Could my hon. Friend quantify the amount of relief that the scheme would give to the heavily congested M4 and A4, in particular the A4 Cromwell road, between one and five miles to the west of central London, which affects not only my constituents but those of many other Members in west London and beyond?
Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend will be aware that a reduction of a relatively small percentage in numerical terms can have a considerable effect on the road network. I am sure that, over the August holiday period, he has witnessed a reduction of 5 or 10 per cent. in the volume of traffic, which can considerably speed up journey times. Any saving must be enormously helpful, but quite a

217
number of taxi and car journeys to Heathrow would be made unnecessary if the proposal were brought into effect, which would create the desired advantage.
The subject was considered in Committee in April and May of 1989. The Committee was concerned about the effect of the surface section of the route on green belt land. The promoters responded positively by introducing an additional provision that routed the railway underground, at an additional cost of about £12 million.
The Heathrow express is a joint project between BAA plc, formerly the British Airports Authority, now in the private sector, and British Rail. BAA can be involved in such a project now that it is a private sector company and brings to the enterprise an unrivalled understanding of the air passenger market and considerable financial strength. British Rail brings its undoubted operational experience as the operator of some of the busiest short-distance routes in the world, as well as its strength in marketing the project as part of the national railway network.
The key to the Heathrow express is the high-quality, high-speed, dedicated nature of the service. It is designed to serve air passengers wanting to get to and from Heathrow and central London. The proposed service is for trains to operate from 5 am to 11.30 pm—outside those hours, very few flights operate from the airport. It is proposed that trains should run every 15 minutes. The journey time from Paddington to Heathrow, terminals 1, 2 and 3, will be 16 minutes and to terminal 4, 20 minutes—a dramatic improvement on the existing form of travel.
The trains will be specially designed, electric multiple units with provision for large amounts of baggage. They will be fully accessible to passengers with disabilities.
Sir Dudley Smith: As a supporter of the Bill, may I point out to my hon. Friend that the road journey is unreliable? One has to leave at least an hour early in either direction. Only last evening, returning from parliamentary duties abroad, I was delayed on the underground for an hour, for technical reasons, on my way to vote in the House.
Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The new service would be a marked improvement, and it is something that we must have if Heathrow is to compete with other European airports.
High-quality information will be a key feature, available on board from BAA or from special displays. The trains will be driven by British Rail drivers.
Mr. Robert Adley: I apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend for not being present for the start of his speech. He has just finished speaking about the route, but does he remember that I have raised the question of a westward-facing link, so that trains from south Wales, the west country and the south-west can travel directly into Heathrow? Does he agree that the BAA, by having use of what are the primary pieces of railway line in this country, has a public duty? Can he give an assurance that, at some point during the passage of the Bill—as those who support it do not want to be disruptive at a later stage—he will consider an amendment to provide for land to be reserved, and if necessary for provision to be made, for that important westward-facing link?
Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend is an acknowledged expert on the railway system, and I am sure that he joins in my feeling of delight that a lot of money is to be spent in this
218
way. He will appreciate that the scheme must stand on its own feet financially. Nothing in the Bill will prevent a connection to the west in due course if demand arises, but we must be satisfied that there is such a demand. At present, it does not seem to exist—but as soon as such a link becomes viable, I am sure that it could be introduced.
Mr. Peter Snape: The relevance of the intervention of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is recognised in all parts of the House, but I am concerned also about a possible link with the former Southern Railway line, west of Feltham. Right hon. and hon. Members will want to ensure that the new service is not built in isolation but will form part of the over all rail network. It should have connections both to the south and the west. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it will be feasible to provide a step-plate junction, or a series of such junctions, to allow the line to be extended to the former Southern Railway link near Feltham at some future date? Can he indicate the promoters' intentions in that regard?
Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that important aspect. I believe that it is hoped that there will eventually be a link to the south, but that too will depend on the viability of such a service. It is important to ensure that any expenditure at this stage is not out of context with the scheme's overall cost. It should be possible to examine the provision of a link such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but cost will be an important factor. It would be wrong to add to the expense of the whole project, and thus to the ticket costs of those people who use the service, by introducing too elaborate a connection. However, it is the intention to explore that possibility.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will know from his vast experience of the railways that, whatever view may be held of where a junction should be introduced, after five years or so, engineers often reach the conclusion that it was not the right choice of location, so a lot of the expense can prove to be abortive. Bitter experience has shown that it is not always wise to spend too much money on providing such a facility too early in a scheme.
Mr. Snape: Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will be disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's reply. He must appreciate that the provision of such a junction, or a series of such junctions, in a tunnel is extremely difficult and expensive—and if that provision is not made at this stage, it is unlikely that it will be done in future, except at enormous expense. I appreciate the difficulties in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself, but unless that aspect is considered sympathetically in Committee, the passage of the Bill is likely to be more protracted than it would be, given a more sympathetic reply from the promoter.
Mr. Thorne: I intended to make it clear that that aspect had been sympathetically considered already, and that much work had been devoted to it. Certainly, the question of providing some form of demountable section in the tunnel is being considered, and further consideration will be given to that aspect in Committee. It is the promoters' wish to make the new rail link as profitable and successful an enterprise as they can. However, much will depend on the final overall cost of such an enhancement. If it runs into many millions of pounds, it would be wrong unfairly

219
to weight the ticket prices for passengers using that dedicated line and thereby make the whole scheme unviable.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Once the Bill has passed through its Committee stage, right hon. and hon. Members may want to take a view on how much of the scheme's costs the promoters should bear and how much should be considered and extraneity. We are now 100 years on from the opening of the line between Stockwell and King William street, which led on over 17 years to a mammoth expansion of the London underground system. If every new infrastructure project is to be half-blocked in the House of Commons for years, few new projects will come forward, because managers will say that they take too long to go through.
I hope that we will find a way of allowing some extra provision to come forward, so that one can consider a viable project together with a few add-ons. Further infrastructure projects will be necessary if we are to double our standard of living again over the next 30 years. A part of that doubling will require infrastructure projects relating to mass-transit operations.
Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend has vast experience of the transport sector. I assure him that the promoters are most anxious that the scheme will be effective and viable. I accept that there are other possibilities for the project, to which I shall refer later. No doors are being closed, and we shall try to ensure that the link caters for the 21st century—which is what it is all about.
Paddington Station will have a pair of platforms dedicated to the Heathrow express, where there will always be a train waiting and a special ticket office will be provided. The taxi and car set down and pick up arrangements are to be modified to ensure a better balance between demand and supply. The express platforms, which will be centrally located, will give easy and level access to taxi ranks and car waiting areas, with simple routes to new escalators that will lead to the London underground. The rearrangement of taxi operations will have the added benefit of reducing rat runs for vehicles through nearby residential streets.
I know that some local residents would like a much more radical change in Paddington's road access arrangements, and British Rail discussed that in detail with Westminster city council. The promoters would also be happy to see that happen, and there would seem to be a window of opportunity to achieve it in conjunction with the construction of platforms for the proposed crossrail link.
Works numbered 1A to 5 provide for the construction of the branch line from the Great Western main line near Stockley Bridge to Heathrow airport. The works begin as a twin-track, cut-and-cover tunnel, continuing as a bored tunnel beneath the M4 and open green belt land. Beneath the airport there will be two stations, one serving terminals 1, 2 and 3 and the other serving terminal 4, each with direct links to the terminal buildings via lifts and escalators, including provision for wheelchairs and for baggage trolleys. The bored tunnel between the two stations will be a single track. The construction of massive stations beneath busy airport terminal areas requires careful planning.
220
Works numbered 6A to 9 provide for the construction of an airport junction. As the express will be using the existing western region fast main line from Paddington in conjunction with the 125 mph inter-city high speed trains, a junction must allow for high-speed points, deceleration and acceleration lanes and flyover for the up eastbound airport branch line.
Disruption to existing operations will be minimised, and local residents will be protected by some special environmental protection measures. Houses next to the existing main line currently experience noise from existing trains. A special green wall, designed to blend in with the railway embankment, will help to reduce noise levels from existing trains and the quieter Heathrow express trains. Some former gravel pits in the area have become ecologically important in the short period since they were dug; the promoters will be taking steps to minimise interference and more than replace areas lost.
Works numbered 10 to 13 permit bridge raising to allow overhead electric wires to be installed on all four mainline tracks at various locations between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington. Other works on the main line for which new powers are not needed include modifications to track works and the installation of new signalling which will also benefit passengers on existing services to the west of England and south Wales.
In order to undertake the works, land and rights have to be purchased and part III provides the power to do so. No house will need to be demolished. Some Government vacant land associated with the Public Record Office has to be acquired. As most of the line runs in tunnel, little land has to be acquired on the surface except for emergency escape shafts and landscaping. However, some land is required for temporary use for a number of working sites.
Part IV contains the normal protective provisions. Within part V, which covers miscellaneous and general matters, is clause 38. That seeks to disapply sections 54 and 56 of the Transport Act 1962. That is necessary because the line, being designed as a special airport link, would be inhibited if the need to consult over closure proposals caused further delays and financial losses. There is no provision for the payment of a public service obligation grant for this line in the unlikely event that it should not prove to be profitable.
All those works add up to a very expensive project, some £235 million at 1989 prices, 80 per cent. of which is to be funded by the BAA and the remainder by BR. The two parties have entered into a joint venture agreement which determines their rights, responsibilities and obligations, and sets out how the income is to be shared. BR's basic return is guaranteed, but there are also incentives in the form of bonus and penalty payments to ensure that the trains run to a strict time-keeping schedule.
The Bill allows for the linking of Heathrow airport to the United Kingdom's mainline railway network. The initial proposals are straightforward and seek to serve a specific market. However, once linked to the network, many other services become possible, some requiring no new powers or infrastructure, while others require modest additions.
While ultimately any decision on which additional services should be run will be for the operators, they will clearly want to take into account the views of users and representative groups. Clearly, one attractive possibility is through operation to Liverpool street and beyond via

221
crossrail, with some trains stopping at intermediate stations. In the longer term, the possibilities for extensions and additions are wide, and the promoters' strategy is to ensure that none of those possibilities are precluded. An example would be for a west-facing link which could be added in a number of ways, such that, if the western region mainline is electrified, trains could operate into Heathrow from the west.
Mr. Adley: The western region main line is due to be electrified from Reading as part of crossrail. If my hon. Friend—I do not say this unkindly—reads the railway press avidly, as I am sure he does, he will know that his comment a moment ago about being linked to the main-line system of BR would be regarded as somewhat cynical, when in fact it is only linked to westbound trains coming out of Paddington.
In response to my first intervention, my hon. Friend said that those things would be looked at. Will he give me an assurance that, during the Bill's passage, there will be a full cost-benefit analysis and a further evaluation by British Rail, as a partner in the project, of the advantages to people from the west country, south Wales, Birmingham and so on, of a west-facing link?
Does my hon. Friend understand that, if he is seeking, as he must be doing, to maximise revenue for the Bill's sponsors, there must be some evaluation of how much extra traffic could be brought into Heathrow by rail if people from, say, Bristol, did not have to whiz past the junction, go into Paddington, get off with all their luggage, transfer to another platform and then go back along the route that they had just travelled? Will he please give an assurance that, before the Bill finishes its passage through the House, we shall be presented with a proper evaluation of that?
Mr. Thorne: I do not read the railway press as avidly as my hon. Friend, but I read it quite closely. I am sure that he will be aware that the traffic which comes from other areas to Heathrow airport is relatively small and that that is why such a link is not as attractive as it might other wise be. For example, I believe that only 1·5 per cent., 2 per cent. at the most, of the traffic using Heathrow comes from Wales.
Mr. Adley: Because there is no railway.
Mr. Thorne: But they have their own airports, and I am anxious that not all passengers should come to London, because that is what makes roads so difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) complained about the amount of road traffic going through his constituency. We must have a balance in these matters. The matter has been evaluated, and the promoters find that it is not cost-effective at the moment. When the network is electrified into Wales, there is no earthly reason why such a scheme should not be taken up at that time.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend seek to ensure that, so far as possible during the Bill's passage, he engenders a favourable climate for the laying down of not only the link to the west but the one to the south, and the rail infrastructure to make possible a fifth terminal? That is the long-term potential of the airport, which will be nullified unless proper rail links are put in in advance.
Mr. Jessel: Rubbish.
Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will see that there is some resistance to his suggestion. The question of a fifth terminal is not one that we are here to discuss tonight. so I shall quickly pass on.
Mr. Snape: I think that I speak on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say that we are aware of the difficulties the hon. Gentleman faces in introducing this legislation, which he is doing in such an able way.
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that it was not cost-effective for the promoters to accept a west-facing link at this time. Of course it is not, because the promoters' only interest is in ferrying as many people as possible from Paddington to Heathrow airport. But will he accept it from me that about 5 million people currently use the coach links from Reading and Woking, and it is joining up Reading and Woking with a line through Heathrow that we are about in the instruction which, sadly, for understandable reasons, has not been accepted? Is not 5 million a substantial number, bearing in mind that it will inevitably grow in the 1990s?
Mr. Thorne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the promoters will look carefully at the link. There is no question of their ruling it out.
Mr. Snape: Are the Government?
Mr. Thorne: If the Government should decide to come forward with some funds to help the promoters on some future occasion, that is a different matter. Tonight, we are discussing the Heathrow Express Railway Bill. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome such a measure as a first step. We should not pull the idea down, because that would remove the opportunity for expansion into a number of other areas which many other people want. We must leave the options open and speed the passage of this Bill—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: This procedure clarifies matters. Part of the difficulty is the lack of a coherent Government policy for railways. If only there were a double Y junction at Harlington and another one at Feltham, all would be clear: people could go from Reading to Heathrow, Croydon and perhaps on to Brighton.
As for crossrail, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a single terminal at Paddington has a disadvantage? Would it not be possible to run suburban trains through to Stratford and possibly Stansted, and to provide an extended dedicated service, to be run on the Gatwick principle, a little further into London, so as to have an alternative destination with all sorts of advantages over the proposal for a single terminal?
Mr. Thorne: It would not be possible to do that under the present proposal. It is an excellent idea to provide the public with a good, efficient, fast and reliable service. It would be unfortunate to spread out that service by sending it to different locations at this stage, but this is only a step in the right direction. In the 21st century, many more facilities will be required.
I am sure that opportunities for crossrail and approaches from the south will materialise. The question is how and when, but I am afraid that we are not here to discuss that tonight. It would be quite wrong to divert our

223
attention from this essential measure if we are to maintain our position as an international air centre, which is the objective of the Bill. The strategy is one of flexible response, but it must be made clear that, until the initial link is provided, no additions, extensions or long-term strategy are possible.
I began by referring to Heathrow's competitors, which want to steal its valuable position and which are therefore developing new mainline rail links to their airports. In many ways, they are just catching up on our lead. In so doing, they will employ the latest designs and operating techniques to make the links as effective as possible.
Arguably, London has already waited too long for a fast rail link to its principal airport. If the House agrees, it will be possible for the first train to run in 1995, 10 years after the planning process started. The Heathrow express project will then allow Heathrow to maintain its lead and even increase it by ensuring that passengers have the widest choice of flights and services and the widest choice of transport opportunities. I urge the House to support the Bill.
7.43 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made a good point. It was remiss of me not to inform the House earlier that Mr. Speaker has not selected the instruction, but the topic of it can be commented on in the course of the debate.
Mr. Morgan: There is little point in repeating material already covered in depth in the carry-over debate, but it is worth repeating one fundamental point that emerged from it a month ago. Since the former Secretary of State for Transport, who has now departed to a thousand hurrahs, made his great announcement on 9 October about the London crossrail link from Paddington to Liverpool Street—it had greater significance in its backwash effect, as it included the announcement of the first 40 miles of the Great Western main line between Paddington and Reading—it has become clear that this Bill should be withdrawn and studied again by the promoters and then re-presented to the House taking into account that momentous announcement at the Conservative party conference. Ninety per cent. of the length of the line in this Bill is on the Great Western main line, but when it was originally planned and presented the Government had made no commitment to electrifying the south Wales main line beyond the point at which it passes just north of Heathrow airport. Now that there is such a commitment, we are in a different ball game.
The promoters could have gone away for four months and realised that, as the Government are committed to electrification through to Reading, they had a different set of options and modalities for integrating the different power modes, different junctions and different expenditures—because the Government will carry out part of the job, by means of the usual British Rail external financing limit, which the promoters had thought they would have to carry out on their own. Now the Government are committed to crossrail, taking electrification from Reading to Paddington, linking through to
224
Liverpool Street and connecting with services to the eastern region of British Rail straight through to Paddington—
Mr. Spearing: Not connected all the way.
Mr. Morgan: Not completely, but the potential for such connection has been brought much nearer.
In this context, the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) becomes even more important. Since the announcement of the crossrail approval by the Government, Paddington has become a far more critical station. Traditionally it has been a friendly home from home for people from south Wales, Bristol and central southern England, and the home of commuter services to the western part of the home counties. All of a sudden the station has acquired the additional function of providing, as the promoters would have it, the main link for high-speed transport from central London to Heathrow. Paddington will become the hub, the most important railway station in Britain and one of the half dozen most important stations in western Europe.
So the promoters will have to take into account the much greater pressure on Paddington that will result from crossrail being added to the Heathrow connection, on top of the traditional role that the station has played since the days of Isambard Kingdom Brunel and the early connections to Bristol and south Wales a century and more ago.
Members of Parliament have a duty to rub our brain cells together and not just to give the Bill a free passage. We must try to imagine how the connections are supposed to work together. We must ask ourselves what the total impact on the planning of Paddington station will be, with crossrail, the Heathrow express and the traditional services. This is not merely a selfish concern of hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and myself about longer queues for taxis at Paddington when we are rushing to get to Welsh Question Time on a Monday afternoon. Paddington has the potential to become the most important and best-planned station in western Europe—or to become the most important and worst-planned, if the project is carried out piecemeal.
The promoters suggest that when crossrail comes along it will be separate, and that Paddington's traditional links to south Wales are different, too. These are not separate aspects: all these services will pass through Paddington. The station cannot expand sideways into densely packed Paddington—that is out of the question—so how will all the traffic fit together?
Mr. Spearing: We are talking not about connections to Liverpool Street but about through services of any sort of combination from Liverpool Street on to Stratford, Cambridge or Ipswich—including possibly to Stratford international. What my hon. Friend said about Paddington's expansion was, happily for him, incorrect. Is he aware that British Rail has a huge site north of Paddington which is empty and which may well be disposed of for some form of development?
As regards overall planning, would it not be wise at least to ensure that space is made available for additional extensions to Paddington if they become necessary for the reasons that my hon. Friend has just advanced?
Mr. Morgan: I defer to my hon. Friend's detailed knowledge of London and its railway system. I was pointing out that there are two schools of thought on the Bill. There are supporters of the enclave principle of railway connection, and supporters of the connection school of railway development. The enclave school of thought is represented by the sponsor and the promoters of the Bill. They think that we should consider the link as an isolated piece of development, serving central London and Heathrow. The link will run on the western region main line for 10 of its 12 or 13 miles, but nevertheless they think of it as if it were on an island, not connected to the national railway system. They think that it is entirely accidental that it has anything to do with the western region main line.
The other school of thought is that, as it will run on the western region main line, hon. Members should consider the national dimension of the Bill. That line does not merely go to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea but proceeds on to Fishguard and the Irish ferries, so it is an international line. Through the link from Didcot to Oxford, Banbury and Birmingham, the line connects with the rest of the midlands, the north and Scotland and offers an alternative route, instead of the better-known route from Euston.
It will not come as any surprise that I favour utilising the desire of the British Airports Authority and British Rail to co-operate in spending several hundred millions of pounds to provide a high-speed connection between central London and Heathrow. I want to see whether we can use the potential that it offers to open up Heathrow so that it will perform its proper function, as Great Britain's number one international airport.
Heathrow is not merely central London's international airport. It has been pointed out that we have an airport in south Wales. So we do—I live about six miles from it, and it is a nice regional airport, but in no sense of the word can it be considered a competitor for Heathrow. It does not have any regular, year-round international, transatlantic or intercontinental connections but merely a modest four international destinations, served by scheduled flights on a regular basis, and another four within the United Kingdom. That is not competition for Heathrow.
People from south Wales, Bristol, Oxford, Swindon or anywhere else in south-west and central England who want to fly to Nicaragua or to Thailand have to go to Heathrow. People will always have to use Heathrow for intercontinental destinations, and that is what people who live outside central London resent most. Heathrow is regarded as the private concern of people who live in central London. The House is regarded as a club for people who occupy positions of influence in central London.
When hon. Members request that the promoters of such Bills consider the interests of six sevenths of the population who do not live in central London, we are thought to be obstructing the people of importance who live there. That is nonsense. We are the Parliament of Great Britain. The only opportunity for the vast majority of people who do not live in central London to make Bills more relevant to them is to utilise the procedures of the House, and to table amendments for consideration by the promoters which, if viable, will be added to the Bill.
I am surprised that the sponsor has not mentioned the publication of the National Economic Development Council report, which has taken place since the carry-over motion. I have a pre-publication copy here. It is called,
226
"On the Right Track to Heathrow Airport" and was released to the press on 10 December. It was widely referred to in the press last week. The National Economic Development Council was seeking to look after the long-term interests of Heathrow, as our most important airport—it is also, although not in freight terms, the most important international airport in western Europe. In the report, the NEDC makes it clear—the NEDC is one of those tripartite bodies of which the Government do not approve, as it brings in the unions and the employers—
Mr. Snape: They do now; it is the new image.
Mr. Morgan: Sorry, I had forgotten about the classless society. Perhaps the NEDC is coming back into favour now.
The report also makes a reference to the work of a n hon. Member who is present tonight—the famous pamphlet, "Tunnel Vision, Rail Routes to the Channel Tunnel"—so it is obviously an excellent publication.
The report referred to the development of Heathrow as being dependent on a rolling programme of improvement. Stage 1 would be the approval of the Bill tonight. Stage 2 would be the construction of a westward-facing link, which would bring the connection from Heathrow to the south Wales main line somewhere near Slough, thereby providing a link to the airport for the people who live in the catchment area of Reading, Didcot, Oxford, Swindon, Bristol, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea—the population in that area is exactly the same as the population of London, about 6 million or 7 million people.
Almost everyone, except the promoters of the Bill, understands the connection between the Bill and the westward-facing link, which would be the logical next step. Therefore, I find it odd that the sponsor has so far been unable to say that the promoters have made any undertaking showing that they are willing to consider how to connect the link provided for by the Bill with the logical next step of integrating Heathrow with the national railway system. The aim of the express railway is not merely to carry passengers from Heathrow airport into London, via Paddington.
7.57 pm
Sir John Wheeler: I offer my warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the way in which he has managed the Bill through the House, and especially on his typical thoroughness and courtesy in responding to the inquiries and concerns of his parliamentary colleagues.
My constituents in the City of Westminster certainly warmly welcome the principle of the new rail link to central London. I have no doubt that many of my constituents will greatly benefit from the new link when it comes into operation.
However, I must say a few words about the environmental and traffic problems that will arise because of this proposal. The impact of the link on central London is just as important as its impact at Heathrow airport and the concerns about traffic problems there which other hon. Members have mentioned.
City of Westminster council is concerned about the environmental impact of the new route and its impact on traffic in the Paddington area, given the expected growth in traffic on roads in that area arising from improvements to the A40, the M40 extensions, the predicted growth in

227
general traffic and rail patronage to Paddington, and significant developments already planned for the locality. Extra traffic at Paddington will have a knock-on effect on congestion on roads and the public transport network throughout the centre of London, and needs to be considered and planned for.
Many of my constituents, especially those living near Paddington station, consider that the promoters have underestimated the potential usage of the railway. The promoters' current estimates—6 million passengers per annum, of whom some 47 per cent. would use cars or taxis at Paddington—are considered cautious, even given the current throughput of Heathrow airport. Moreover, they do not take into account the construction of terminal 5, which would increase usage by at least 31 per cent.
The city council is attempting to secure the development of the Paddington area—which spans the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) as well as mine—in a balanced manner. Our residential population wants the council to implement policies to establish the area as one of mixed use, while protecting and enhancing the amenity of the existing residential area, which house a considerable number of people.
The council has emphasised the importance of traffic-related issues, and the need to plan comprehensively for the long term when considering the four major planning applications relating to the immediate Paddington area. As a result, considerable changes have been made to the applications which reduce their traffic impact. For example, one developer has cut the proposed car parking from 2,500 to 431 spaces, and is proposing to pay for a wide range of highway improvements in the vicinity of the station, including direct access to it off Bishops Bridge road.
Unfortunately, the negotiations between my local authority and the promoters have suggested—at least until tonight—that there is little evidence of long-term planning for Paddington station. That is a matter of great concern to my council and to local residents. For instance, the retention of the sub-standard ramp off Bishops Bridge road, which requires cars to stop and then proceed at about 4 mph, makes the movement of traffic very difficult. If the British Rail access scheme were part of a private development, my local authority simply would not approve it.
Alternative access from the north of the station, via Bishops Bridge road, would be superior in terms of traffic, safety, parking and environment. The city council has been pressing BR to adopt a scheme providing such access for some time. The council still feels that such a scheme could be fully integrated with crossrail, including the through running of Heathrow trains. I was glad to learn tonight from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South that the crossrail development could involve that; I assure him that my authority and its residents would welcome it.
I know that my hon. Friend will convey my messages to the promoters. Let me emphasise the importance of thorough consideration and implementation of the traffic management aspects of the new route. Because of other major planning developments, the stress imposed on the
228
immediate area is such that the control of traffic will be a crucial issue for the residential community for many years to come.
The problem of access to the station must be resolved, and soon, so that my local authority, which has to approve the applications, has time to reassure the public, who have an interest in planning applications, as well as ensuring that their environmental and residential objectives are met. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the keen interest that he has displayed in these matters—at least until this moment.
8.4 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: I, too, welcome the Bill; but I find it extraordinary that, over 40 years, Heathrow has developed into a major international airport without having the benefit of a rail link. BAA plc is to be congratulated on having enabled itself to promote the Bill and also fund the new railway.
I have a constituency interest, in that I am concerned for both the continued success of Heathrow airport—which employs many of my constituents—and the relief of the traffic congestion caused by the airport. I believe that the new railway can contribute to both.
As for the quality of the rail link, the Heathrow Express will certainly compare favourably with the rail link connecting with Charles de Gaulle airport: there, it is necessary to board a bus to travel from the terminal to the station.
I hope very much that the new railway will be a success. Nevertheless, we should remember that it will provide a link only with the network to the north of the airport, and that there is a strong case for providing a link with the network to the south. I hope that the Committee will satisfy itself that the proposed works will not prejudice the provision of such a link.
The stations and tunnels that are to be built under the airport could be used—the stations certainly, and the tunnels as part—to provide that southern link, and I hope that the means will eventually be found. I also hope that the Committee will establish as far as possible that the method of construction will not preclude the provision of the southern link and that, within reason, the door will be kept open for it.
I understand from engineering consultants employed by the London borough of Hounslow that, for an additional £3 million—now—three sections of tunnel could be designed, rather wider than currently planned, so that the tunnels for a southern link could be let in later without the need for the railway to be closed while the work was being done. Letting in the tunnels could enable the northern link stations to be used for the southern link, too.
I realise that £3 million is a lot of money, and that the promoters must look to the potential customers for the financing of the development, at least at present. However, this is a modest sum compared with the £220 million being spent on the Heathrow express, and the £35 million that it would cost to shut the railway and join the tunnels with the southern link once the railway was in operation. We must keep the figures in perspective.
We do not yet know the extent to which, after its current venture, BAA plc will develop a taste for providing railway links with its airports. But whoever is in the

229
business of providing railways in the future will be more attracted to doing so if those modest steps are taken to keep open the possibility of a southern link.
A report by Colin Buchanan and Partners, which was commissioned by the London borough of Hounslow, shows that, in engineering, operational and environmental terms, a southern rail link to the airport is a practical possibility. A further report by Colin Buchanan and Partners for the London boroughs of Hounslow, Richmond, Kingston upon Thames, Merton and Sutton supports the practicality of an orbital rail link in south-west London. Several of my hon. Friends have also referred to the report by the National Economic Development Council, was published on 10 December, which supports those ideas in a much more general framework.
I hope that BAA plc, which has suggested that it will try to keep open as many options as possible, and which has already shown some agreement between the consultants on these matters, will continue to keep that option open. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will look carefully at the desirability of keeping open the option for a southern link and that, within reason, the money will be found for doing so because it will undoubtedly be very much more expensive to provide such as link in the future. Keeping that option open would encourage whoever is responsible for the provision of the railways to provide the further rail link which is very much needed because it would strengthen Heathrow and its surrounding environment.
8.11 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: I sympathise with the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). We know that the promoters introduced the Bill to try to improve the surface access problems that exist at Heathrow. Those problems existed before terminal 4 was built, and have hardly improved since. The sponsors suggest that 6 million potential passengers will use the link, thus taking a great deal of traffic off the roads between central London and Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has said that the sponsors must bear in mind the implications for terminal 5 and ensure that they get the link correct.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) is sitting quietly on the Front Bench—from his point of view, I hope that things remain that way—but may I advise him that a great deal of what needs to be done in connection with Heathrow, its surface access problem and the wider implications of the Bill is a matter for the Government, not the sponsors? One cannot expect BAA plc to fund surface access improvements between Heathrow and the Cromwell road. That is a matter for the Government, who should have an integrated transport policy for rail, road and air travel.
My hon. Friend the Minister has now turned to me and has a slight twinkle in his eye. He knows that it is impossible to talk about surface access to Heathrow, the rail link that we should have and the movement of aircraft, without thinking in terms of integration. It is no good the Government having a policy on aircraft movement, the railways and in connection with what the Civil Aviation Authority should he doing, if they do not think about the needs of terminal 5 at Heathrow. There can be no doubt
230
that west-facing access is vital to the people of the west country and south Wales, as is the southern link. Although building the tunnel has some technical implications, in my view that is not the responsibility of BAA plc or British Rail; it is a matter for the Government.
I was opposed to the Bill from the outset because of the effect that it will have on my constituents, although I accept the principle behind it. I still believe that this is the wrong route and that it should run directly from Southall. However, I pay tribute to the sponsors for the way in which they have listened to the criticisms about the route—some constructive, some not—from people such as myself. The sponsors were criticised at first for their lack of consultation, but the consultation process has improved tremendously during the past year or so. Many of my constituents have been able to see the proposals in model form and there has been a hot line by which they could contact the sponsors to find out exactly what was going on.
As suggested by my local authority, the route has been amended to avoid fragmenting the green belt, at a cost to the promoters of £12 million. I am also grateful that, as a result of pressure—some from myself—the route will be taken under the M4 rather than over it, as was originally suggested. The noise and environmental implications for my constituents as the route comes out of Hayes station and turns left to cross the green belt towards Heathrow were matters of great concern, but I understand that a "green wall" is to be built, which will help to reduce the noise levels experienced by most of the residents who back on to the existing main line. To some extent, the green wall will not make all that much difference to some of those who will suffer extremely badly from noise, but the sponsors have agreed to make a financial contribution towards sound insulation to try to make life that bit more bearable for those people.
The disruption to Stockley lakes is important for both ecological and fishing reasons, but it will be minimised by the well thought-out development and management plan. Assurances have been given that the greatest care will be taken to avoid any hazards when dealing with landfill.
I still believe that, in due course, consideration should be given to a different route. However, it bears repeating that the sponsors have at last—I emphasise the words "at last"—responded to the needs of my constituents and to the pressures that I have brought to bear, along with other colleagues, and have made the adjustments and modifications that are necessary to make life bearable for my constituents.
Therefore, although I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight, I also hope that, in Committee, the sponsors will take on board some of the points that have been made tonight. The most important aspect of all this is that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench should put their heads together and start thinking in terms of integration. Money must be made available to make sure that we get it right, so that the people of south Wales, and those in my home town of Bristol, can have access to Heathrow without this nonsense of passing it by, going into Paddington and having to come out again. I hope that terminal 5 will soon begin the long process of construction, starting in my local authority. We must bear in mind the needs of terminal 5, which, again, is more a matter for the Government than for the sponsors—
Mr. Jessel: Surely my hon. Friend cannot imagine that his local borough council will be expected to decide the

231
planning permission and that any future application for a fifth terminal will not result in a call-in, a public inquiry and a decision by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend misunderstands me. I said that the start of the planning process would begin with my local authority. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, as he is about the musicians in his constituency: it will be a long-term process. I am sure that the matter will be called in and decided elsewhere.
As I have said, I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading and that all the points that have been made by hon. Members will be taken into consideration by the promoters and by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
8.18 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I should perhaps make my speech short and say that, if the Bill satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), it satisfies me. His emollient tones bode well for the passage of the Bill. No one would criticise my hon. Friend for not exercising independent and constructive judgment on behalf of his constituents, as he always has and certainly has on this Bill, which is much the better for it.
The problem with the development of airports in this country has always been that far too little attention has been paid to the vital aspect of surface access. Lack of surface access, particularly rail access direct to passenger terminals, has caused congestion, with which we are all too familiar, and has damaged the potential development of airports. This is true of Luton, where there is no direct rail link; it has been so for a long time of Stansted; it was true until the Gatwick express was created for Gatwick; and, for far too long, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) pointed out, it has been true of Heathrow. The consequence for passengers and for those living around these airports has been the failure to exploit their economic potential and a degradation of the environment that was quite unnecessary.
This modest Bill—in financial terms, it is far from modest—will, I hope, be the precursor of further measures to put in place a fully strategic rail infrastructure for Heathrow and other key airports.
I know that my constituents have a double interest in the Bill: first, because anything that is good for Heathrow in international terms—rail access is a vital aspect of that matter—is good for them, as Heathrow is the main source of employment for my constituents, apart from central London; and, secondly, they ask whether it will improve their access to the airport. With the development of crossrail, this may be so. A station on the crossrail link from Aylesbury and Amersham at Northwood will enable them to travel at high speed through to the Paddington terminal and out to the airport.
More important, the rail link will significantly reduce the grave traffic congestion that bedevils west London, which is caused to a large extent by a lack of proper rail access to the Heathrow terminals.
My hon. Friends who argue for wider examination of the Bill's implications in Committee have logic and sense on their side. As I said, the Bill is a precursor of other measures, and we shall undoubtedly need that connection
232
out to the west, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) so eloquently intervened, and the connection to the south, to which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston alluded. If we are fully to utilise Heathrow's potential and preserve the local environment, we need to exploit the rail connections much more than is envisaged at present.
I hope that the good experience of the Bill and the installation of this rail link will set a necessary example to policy makers in the Department of Transport. Although the sponsors of the Bill—the BAA and the British Railways Board—deserve full credit for the impetus that they have put behind it and for their readiness to modify it, nevertheless it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport to ensure that the premier gateway to this country—Heathrow airport—has the proper rail access to the east, the west and the south which it deserves. I support the Bill.
8.23 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: The remarkable aspect of this debate has been the unanimity on not only the desirability of this project but the need to widen and to extend it to take care of the transport needs of passengers from all over the United Kingdom who wish to travel to and from the busiest international airport and the need and desire to see this stretch of railway become a integral part of the British Rail network. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) reminded us, the crossrail should extend to the south, to the west and to the east.
Regrettably, the Bill does no such thing. For eminently understandable reasons, the interests of the former British Airports Authority, which is now BAA plc, lie in maximising the number of passengers who use its airports. Quite fairly, it does not see it as its role or responsibility to do more than that. That illustrates the weakness of the Government's transport philosophy—I would not deign to call it a policy, because a policy implies that something exists—which is that the market will provide these things and that it is the best judge of where resources are necessary and when and how they will be financed and implemented.
I was fascinated to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)—I usually am fascinated to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speeches—who represents the intellectual wing of the Conservative party. He came out tonight as a closet integrator and demanded an integrated transport system. I very much doubt whether it will save him from the wrath of the electors at the next general election. I have a feeling that they will prefer the fervour of the real thing—socialist transport policy—to the fervour of the convert. His conversion, albeit late, is nevertheless welcome.
To a certain extent, we have heard a repeat of some of the arguments that were advanced in the debate on the carry-over motion a month ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), with his wit, humour and customary brevity, set out the needs and desires of passengers from Cardiff, the west and south west for a west-facing connection into Heathrow airport, as did

233
my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke in the debate on that motion but is unable to be present this evening.
The reaction of British Rail's management to the proposals put forward by my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members was interesting. I have a letter from the "Director, Projects" of the British Railways Board to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. On the specific question of the west-facing link, the director, Mr. David R. V. Beynon, said:
"You mentioned links for traffic from South Wales. I am sure you will appreciate that any additional stops on the InterCity services will increase the journey times for the vast majority of passengers who will continue to want to travel to or via Central London."
Paddington is not in central London—a point which should not escape us in these debates and which was made by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) when he spoke of the disturbance that 6 million passengers will cause the city of Westminster and in and around Paddington station.
The letter continued:
"An interchange at Paddington will mean that every InterCity train connects with a Heathrow Express service which will be waiting in the platform and the passengers can change platforms without having to go up and down steps. South Wales will thus have better access to Heathrow than other regions, passengers from which will have to cross London via the Underground."
There is nothing like BR management for stating the obvious, but it does not appear to be particularly convenient to pass the eventual destination of a good many passengers and to go on to the centre of London, only for those passengers to have to reverse 10 miles along the route over which they have already travelled.
The letter concluded:
"I hope this helps to allay any concerns you may have had over the effect of the Bill on services from South Wales."
It does not allay any concerns. Indeed, when one reads such gobbledegook from rail management, it arouses even more concern among those of us who are worried about the future of that once great industry.
The same gentleman wrote to me about the same topic because, like my hon. Friends, I raised the issue of a west-facing link. In his letter, Mr. Beynon said:
"Thirdly, with regard to a west facing link, it would be wrong to say that BAA and BR do not want it. We have several ideas about how this could be achieved which would not be precluded by the initial link. Again as you pointed out, through services to the west cannot take place until the Western Region Main Line is fully electrified."
As far as I am aware, I did not point that out, but no matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West reminded us during the debate on the carry-over motion, the Minister of State said that electrification as far as Reading of an east-west crossrail service was an integral part of the scheme, and we are grateful for that. British Rail's fears about providing a west-facing link without electrification had been eased, if not nullified, by the Minister's statement a month or so ago.
Hon. Members can see no reason why such a west-facing link cannot be provided. I am sure that my hon. Friends from Welsh constituencies, some of whom have spoken on the Bill, will continue to advocate the provision both during and after the Committee stage. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider the depth of feeling on both sides of the House about this scheme.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Unfortunately, I was not here for the earlier part of the
234
debate. My hon. Friend may recall that, in the debate on the carry-over motion, the issue of access from south Wales was emphasised and we pointed out the considerable potential for bringing passengers from Birmingham and the north-west of England into Heathrow via Reading.
Mr. Snape: I said earlier that an estimated 5 million passengers were carried by the existing coach links from Woking and Reading to Heathrow airport. I put that point to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who sponsors the Bill, to show the additional revenue that the transfer of those passengers from the coach link to a through rail service would provide for the Bill's promoters, including British Rail. I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman also emphasise the necessity of getting those 5 million passengers who currently come by car or coach off the west London roads, where they are an absolute menace?
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman steals my next point, but I do not complain about that. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington lucidly advocated the case for an integrated transport system. The problem is that, where such a provision is needed, it is rarely made. Despite the words of the new Secretary of State for Transport on taking office, road and rail schemes are not judged by using the same criteria. The Government intend to widen the M25—unaccountably, in the view of many of us—which will merely ensure even more traffic jams and four congested lanes—
Mr. Dicks: An even bigger car park.
Mr. Snape: —an even bigger car park, as the hon. Gentleman says. Where extra demand exists for the road network, extra provision is made by extending it; where extra rail demand exists, either it is not met or Ministers come out with the advice to British Rail that it should use—in the immortal phrase uttered by the Department of Transport—the "mechanism of the market" to damp down demand. For those of us who speak a more lucid form of English, that means that fares are increased, passengers are forced off the trains on to the road and another lane is built on the M25 to cater for the extra demand generated by using that beloved "mechanism of the market", to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington takes violent and welcome exception.
Mr. Dicks indicated dissent.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He cannot call for an integrated transport system and also embrace the mechanism of the market, intellectual though he might be. I think that he will accept that there is a conflict.
Mr. Dicks indicated dissent.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head again.
I had better not tempt him further.
We have also debated the issue of an exit to the south and the former Southern railway. If its proposals were accepted in Committee, the Hounslow petition would require the Bill's promoters to provide three partial step-plate junctions in the proposed tunnel for the express rail system beneath Heathrow to enable the tunnel to be joined to a link between Heathrow and the Southern railway west of Feltham. The estimate is that the cost of

235
those three step-plate junctions, if they were made during the express rail construction, would be about £3 million. To build the junctions breaking into the tunnel after construction of the express link would involve estimated expenditure of £21 million.
Of course, construction after the rail link was open would mean that the Heathrow express service would need to be stopped for about a year, with a loss in fare revenue alone of £35 million. It appears that, unless provision is made for that southern link to be provided at the outset, there will be little opportunity—other than a very expensive one—for it to be constructed once the express link is completed and gets under way.
I commend to the Under-Secretary the Colin Buchanan report "Additional Public Transport in South West London", figure 3.3 of which shows the loop connection to the former Southern railway which would enable eight trains an hour to serve the Heathrow express rail stations from the south without any restriction on capacity from Paddington. The eight trains an hour from the south would serve the London boroughs of Richmond, Hounslow, Sutton, Merton and Kingston upon Thames in an orbital service from Croydon to Heathrow, via Streatham, Wimbledon, Kingston, Twickenham and Feltham. We and, perhaps more important, the local authorities concerned believe that that service would make an important contribution to resolving the massive problems of road traffic congestion in south-west London. The Heathrow-Croydon orbital service would also provide a rail service between Heathrow and Gatwick.
I commend to Ministers the Labour party's transport proposals for the channel tunnel scheme—where we propose a rail ring around London—of which these proposals would form an integral part. Again, there is nothing particularly revolutionary in such proposals. They have long been accepted for the road network. Indeed, a rail ring is exactly what the French are providing around Paris to cater for the extra traffic that the channel tunnel links will generate. Of course, the French plan these matters; they are not obsessed with road building as the Department of Transport has been throughout its long and largely shallow history.
The scheme that I outlined will cost less than £200 million, according to Colin Buchanan's study—the price of a few hundred yards of road in docklands. We are talking not about docklands but about a scheme that could benefit not only passengers to and from Heathrow but rail passengers throughout the United Kingdom and, once the channel tunnel opens, rail passengers throughout western Europe.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will take those points on board and will give an undertaking that, in Committee, the proposals will be studied seriously. If they are not carried out at the first construction stages, they are unlikely to be carried out at all. The Labour party fears a re-run of the docklands light railway saga, when a palpably inadequate system was installed and now has to be improved, at enormous public expense. For goodness' sake, let us get it right on this occasion.
History does not fill us full of enthusiasm or optimism on these matters. We do not judge road and rail schemes by similar criteria. At present, there are hundreds of road schemes that, under the existing criteria used by the
236
Department, can be justified, but which, as all of us in the House know, will never be built because of their environmental impact and because of the uproar that they would cause among the public. Yet, at the same time, we have rail schemes that, under the existing criteria laid down by the Department, could be built, but which cannot be justified. Something is wrong; that something is a lack of transport policy.
There has been some unanimity in the debate. Hon. Members of all parties acknowledge that transport policy is missing from the Bill. We must get it right this time. If the Under-Secretary and the Minister for Public Transport get it wrong, it will be an expensive mistake for which the rest of us, in due course, will have to pay.
8.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate all the hon. Members who have taken part in this good debate, although the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spread the debate somewhat and went into his usual overdrive about policy. He made the commitment that he would spend £200 million, which will no doubt be wholly rejected by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Snape: I want to make a point that will be important for the Minister's education when he returns to opposition, as he will after the next election. The proposals have been costed and approved, and they are part of our national transport policy, which is supported by the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks); it is called planning.
Mr. McLoughlin: That is an interesting diversion, but I will not go down that route. I have never been in opposition in this place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman stays in his place for a considerable time to come.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) on the able way in which he raised the matter, which has stood around and been talked about for so long. He did a remarkable job and he carried most of the House with him when he dealt with each point.
The Government fully support the principle of the Bill. The prospect of an express rail link between London and Europe's busiest airport is exciting, because it will help to ensure that Heathrow continues to be a major interchange for world and for European travel. The fact that this is essentially a private sector project, with the British Airports Authority putting up 80 per cent. of the cost and bearing the majority of the risk, shows that the private sector can play a significant role in the new transport project.
Most hon. Members are in favour of the principle of the link, but there are some reservations which have been raised today. I am sure that the objections raised by the various petitioners will be examined fully in Committee. I understand that the promoters are in discussion with many of the petitioners to see whether their concerns can be dealt with satisfactorily before then.
Concern has been expressed on two points. The first was the environmental impact of the scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) raised. The second point was the possibility of the provision of a west-facing link being included in the Bill. Officials at the Department are currently researching

237
the setting of standards for noise levels for new railways in line with those that are already applied to new highways. British Rail is responsible for making arrangements for noise insulation and is currently engaged in research aimed at reducing noise and vibration from trains.
Hon. Members have referred to the noise from the intensified use of existing railways. I hope that we can announce a decision on compensation early next year. Both the BAA and British Rail are committed to ensuring that the environmental consequences of the proposed link are minimised and that the building and operation of the link are as unobtrusive as possible. I have no doubt that their detailed plans will be scrutinised carefully in Committee.
The west-facing link has many proponents and the suggestion for such a link was echoed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). He referred to the report of the National Economic Development Office entitled "On the Right Track to Heathrow Airport". It argued the need to connect Heathrow more effectively with west and south Wales. That is not the only proposal to enhance the service. There is also a proposal for a link to the southern region track into Waterloo and there are calls for the crossrail train to serve Heathrow to provide a direct service to Essex.
However, all the potential developments will come to nothing if the basic priority of an express Heathrow-Paddington link is not achieved. The Bill will provide the foundations on which other new services can be built. The important issue is to get the Bill through, in the knowledge that nothing in it precludes further development in the longer term. I know that the promoters are discussing with Hounslow borough council ways in which the potential for a southern region link can be preserved. I am sure that an appropriate solution can be found.
Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister has referred to the foundations. It seems strange to build the foundation before we decide how to construct the building. Does not the Minister intend to respond to hon. Members of all parties who have said that the Bill proposes a piecemeal development, which does not consider the eventual shape of the railways? In Wales, we are very concerned about that. The burgeoning economy of south Wales must be served by what is our main airport. Has that been taken into account? The Minister has talked about foundations, but he has not reacted to the debate.
Mr. McLoughlin: I thought that I had made the point clear. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the fact that the economy of south Wales has boomed during the past few years under this Government is to be welcomed. However, that has brought fresh problems and requires further infrastructure. My point was that the Bill will not preclude further development. Without the line, there will be no opportunity for such development. The Committee will be able to look at the whole question and it can make recommendations. I have no doubt that there will be consultations at that time. If the BAA can come to an accommodation with other groups or if fresh developments are merited, there may be changes. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that I did not make that point. I think that he was engaged in a conversation when I referred directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, so he may not have heard me make that point.
238
The prospects for the crossrail service to Heathrow will be examined, but the immediate priority is for a high-quality link to London, which is what the Bill provides and what the Government support. I hope that the Bill can move through its remaining stages successfully and as swiftly as possible.
8.47 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: I am inclined to support the Bill. It seems plain common sense that there should be a fast rail connection between central London and Heathrow. The present rail link by underground, the Piccadilly line, is hopelessly inadequate. It stops 15 or 20 times between central London and Heathrow; it stops every two or three minutes. Contrasted with that, a 16-minute service from Paddington to Heathrow will be excellent.
One factor which appeals to me is the relief it would bring to traffic on the A4, the Cromwell road in west London. That is one of London's main arterial roads not only to the western side of London, but beyond, and to the whole of the west and south-west of England and to Wales. That is one of London's most main roads.
When I intervened earlier, I did not have the figures to hand of the estimated impact on that traffic of constructing the Paddington-to-Heathrow rail link. Since then, I have been informed that it would affect the number of vehicles on Cromwell road by some 3,000 per day—about 2,000 taxis and about 1,000 cars per day. That is not a vast proportion, but it is not insignificant, and it would benefit all those people who live in west and south-west London and beyond, including my constituents who have to get in and out of London along the Cromwell road.
The one thing that would stand in the way of my support for the Bill is the thought that it was linked in any way to the concept of a fifth terminal at Heathrow, as was half-implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I hope that he will not mind if I say that I regard him as one of my best friends. I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) replies to the debate, if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he can assure me categorically that there is no such plan and that the proposal to construct the railway from Paddington to Heathrow stands on its own. I would require that undertaking from him before deciding whether to support the Bill.
I warmly support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) said about the need for a subsequent rail link into Heathrow from Feltham, Twickenham, Richmond and beyond. As the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), said, that is supported by five south London boroughs, and I believe that it would be warmly welcomed. I hope that we can have a clear assurance that what is decided by the House tonight and what is anticipated in Committee would not: stand in the way of that.
I have the utmost sympathy with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who said that he did not want people from south Wales going to Heathrow to have to travel into Paddington and then go back to Heathrow. We can all sympathise with that. I went to Cardiff by rail last month. I live about five or six miles from Heathrow airport. I drove my car to Reading and took an excellent

239
fast train from Reading to Cardiff. It is a first-class service. I can understand how people from south Wales would feel about having to go all the way into Paddington and back again. However, a much larger number of people want to travel from Cardiff, Bristol, Reading or Swindon all the way into London. There are more people from those places who would want to travel into London than would want to go to Heathrow on any one day. A stop at Hayes and Harlington would hold up all those people.
I stand to be corrected by a railway expert, but I believe that a one-minute stop, to which is added the time for slowing down and speeding up before and after Hayes and Harlington, would add between eight and 12 minutes to the journey. The same would apply coming out from Paddington to Heathrow. It would add about four minutes to the 16-minute journey, making it 20 minutes. That would affect a much larger number of people wanting to travel from Paddington to Heathrow. One would want to see the figures for the number of people travelling from Cardiff and the other places I have mentioned to Heathrow each day so as to weigh up the benefit to them against the loss in time to what I believe would be a larger number of people.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is not over-enthusiastic about a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Will he accept that, at present, much of the pressure on Heathrow is caused by the large number of people who arrive on flights from other parts of England and Wales to change at Heathrow? If we had the western link, many of those people would find it easier to come by rail to Heathrow, and there would not be as much pressure for the extra terminal.
Mr. Jessel: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but if the train were to stop at Hayes and Harlington for a change to Heathrow, it would already be slowing down and it would only take about another five or seven minutes to get to Paddington. The benefit to the people he described is marginal, and it would have to be set against a disbenefit to a large number of people caused by a stop in both directions at Hayes and Harlington station. I suspect that, if one were to see the figures for the number of people involved in all those categories, the loss in terms of human time would be greater than the gain.
I hope that that point will not be allowed to stand in the way of the progress of what I believe would be a generally beneficial Bill. Many of those from Cardiff and other parts of the country can now fly direct to certain continental destinations, and that will increase as time goes on. It could be that the proportion of those wanting to travel from places such as Cardiff and Bristol to Heathrow will not increase as fast as the number who want to travel from central London to Heathrow, because of the increasing number of flights from provincial airports to continental destinations.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. As long as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South can give me the assurances I seek, I shall not oppose the Bill.
8.56 pm
Mr. Thorne rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) have the leave of the House to speak again? It seems that he does.
Mr. Thorne: This has been an extremely helpful and constructive debate. Hon. Members have made constructive points and I am sure that the promoters will have listened carefully to everything that has been said. I reiterate that it is their wish to make a profitable and successful enterprise of this project and anything that can be done to enhance its output will be considered seriously.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) talked about the present proposal having been planned in isolation. It was the result of a successful competitive bid by BAA and British Rail from which the scheme has evolved. It was one of a number considered at the time and, therefore, was not part of an overall strategy. We should make that point clear. I welcome what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and other hon. Members said about this being a step forward, but it would be wrong to blame the sponsors for not incorporating it in a larger network.
Of course, Heathrow is a national airport. This is not a local matter and I am sure that BAA in particular would not dream of suggesting otherwise. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West will be pleased to hear that the NEDC report to which he referred has been welcomed by Sir John Egan, the chief executive of BAA. That and what it implies augurs well for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) rightly voiced the fears of his constituents about additional traffic in their area. I fully take on board what he said. The promoters wish to do everything possible to mitigate that. The matter is not entirely in their hands. As my hon. Friend knows, several other bodies are involved—including English Heritage—and their permission must be obtained on certain aspects. However, I am sure that the crossrail link will be helpful to his constituents. We can expect that a proper and detailed plan for Paddington station will be incorporated in the near future.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) made a strong case for keeping open the option of a link to the south. I gave an assurance earlier that the matter was under active consideration. Although the instruction to the Committee was not accepted by Mr. Speaker, I am sure that a future link to the south will be considered carefully by both the Opposed Private Bill Committee and the House.
My hon. and learned Friend said that it would be enormously more expensive to incorporate the work on a southern link at a later date. As he said, the work could be done at a tenth of the price in the planning for this link. That will most certainly be taken into account. But cost is relevant because the railway must be self-financing. It would be wrong to give a commitment that, regardless of cost, the items referred to will be incorporated. That would have an adverse effect on the overall cost to the passengers who will use the line. It would discourage people from using it, which in turn would lead to more congestion on the roads. Such matters must be delicately balanced and we must watch them carefully.

241
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) made a helpful speech. He welcomed the project and gave it his good wishes. He made an important point when he congratulated the promoters on listening so carefully to what people were saying. That was certainly my experience, too. They went out of their way to listen to everyone involved in the Bill. They have always listened and they are still open to suggestions. If every sponsor of a private Bill listened as carefully as they have done, private Bills would go through the House more speedily.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) said that it was necessary to incorporate the railway as part of a larger network. He congratulated the promoters on bringing forward the scheme at this stage and I share his view.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) mentioned the need for strategic planning and a link from the west. We all hope that demand will show that there is a need for a service from the west. It might be helpful to mention the origin of the people who use Heathrow. According to a survey, central London provides just over 32 per cent. of Heathrow passengers. Outer London provides just over 19 per cent., the south-east provides just over 31 per cent., the south-west provides almost six per cent., East Anglia provides over 2·5 per cent., the midlands provide almost 4·5 per cent., the north provides 2·5 per cent., Scotland provides 0·5 per cent. and Wales provides just over 1·5 per cent. Those figures show that the plan to initiate the project as quickly as possible is the natural and most sensible course of action.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East quoted figures for people who come to Heathrow by coach. If those figures accurately indicate that demand will grow, I
242
am sure that we shall soon have a connection to the west. It should come soon after the electrification of that part of the railway network. We can look forward to that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for stepped junctions. That must be fully and properly investigated. Clearly, one would not want the whole project to be closed for 12 months purely and simply because stepped junctions had not been provided at a reasonable cost earlier in the project. That will be carefully considered.
The Minister made a helpful speech. He knows as much as I do about the project. I am sure that the Government are as anxious as everyone else that the proposals be quickly and speedily introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) asked for an assurance that the project is not dependent on the construction of a fifth terminal at Healthrow. I am happy to give him that assurance. There is no requirement to build a fifth terminal to make the project viable. The project can stand on its own feet on the basis of existing demand.
I have also been asked separately by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to respond to a request that he previously made for a stop at Acton, for the benefit of Heathrow staff, many of whom live in his constituency. I looked into the matter some months ago and was disappointed to find that the possibility of using alternative rolling stock to convey staff to and from Acton and Heathrow at the changeover duty period could not be implemented because the available rolling stock did riot comply with modern safety standards for carriages going in tunnels. Because of that unfortunate fact, that stop cannot be implemented now. I hope that such a facility will be provided in future. It certainly cannot be provided when, as I hope, the project is opened for business in 1995.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred—

(a) in connection with the formation of any company formed with a view to, or for any purpose of, the carrying on of activities designated under the Act or with the operation of any such company wholly owned by the Secretary of State; or

(b) in assuming responsibility for any liabilities (whether of such a company or any other company which is or has been a contractor) which are liabilities arising out of the carrying on of activities so designated or liabilities to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed in or in connection with the carrying on of such activities.—[Kenneth Carlisle.]

9.5 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is important that we do not let this motion go through on the nod. The whole history of the House of Commons is based on the demands of commoners to have the right to some control over expenditure. It is sad that, in recent years, hon. Members have tended to take less and less interest in money resolutions, and how money is spent.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Not me.
Mr. Bennett: I fully acknowledge that my hon. Friend has made a habit of speaking on money resolutions, and I certainly commend him for it.
I must apologise to the House for not having been here to listen to the earlier debate. I was serving on the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill. It is possible that some of the questions on expenditure that I wish to ask were answered previously, and tomorrow I shall read with interest the debate in Hansard, but I hope that the Minister will bear with me and at least attempt to answer some of my questions.
How much are the Government including in their estimates to cover nuclear safety? In particular, what will they include to cover compensation for workers who suffer from radiation? How much extra will be spent on the national health service for treating those patients? Will the Government make available to the general public the information about what is happening to people who work in the new establishment?
Recently, I tabled questions about the levels of radiation experienced by workers at naval dockyards. I am pleased that at long last the Government have adopted a more open approach to such matters and have started to publish the levels of radiation. That helps to alleviate some fears, although when one or two workers see the levels of dosage from which they have suffered and the implications that that has, particularly now that the international standards—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): I did not quite catch where the hon. Gentleman was asking us to look at levels of radiation.
Mr. Bennett: It is for the workers who will be employed in the manufacture of the warheads. I was drawing a
244
comparison with the problems suffered in the naval dockyards. I said that I was pleased that the Government were starting to publish that information.
After having discovered that some workers in the dockyard who were directly employed by the Government were getting the figures, I was alarmed to discover when I asked about workers employed by Rolls-Royce—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is difficult to see how these matters relate to the money resolution.
Mr. Bennett: I started by asking how much this would cost. I was describing what happened in the naval dockyards, where the Government were prepared to give information for their workers, but refused to do so for Rolls-Royce workers.
The measure will privatise the work being done at Aldermaston. I want to be sure that when we question the Government about the possible levels of radiation suffered by people working on the warheads, we shall not be told that that information, and the costs associated with it, cannot be made available to us.
Shall we be given the full costs of the Trident programme and all the implications involved in that development? We are constantly given the figure—
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Bill? If not, I have a spare copy with me that he could have. I ask because the issues that he is raising have nothing to do with the Bill. As he was not present for the Second Reading debate, when we had an informed discussion, I thought that he might not have read the measure, and I hoped that he would make his remarks relevant to it.
Mr. Bennett: I was making pertinent comments about the costs involved. I appreciate the Government's enthusiasm for covering up the sort of issues that I am raising. I should have thought that the Government would be prepared to put forward all the details about the costs involved in those issues. The Government should be open in these matters. After all, the Minister moved the resolution formally, as though he did not think there was a need to talk about costs and similar issues. Had he been prepared to make an opening speech which included all the cost details, there might have been no need for me to raise these issues. I shall listen with interest to his reply to the debate.
I am anxious to know when the House will be given the full costings of the Trident programme. We are still being given round figures, but I gather that there are major problems with that programme. The Government leave out crucial bits of information from the figures that they give. In the entire nuclear area, we have not been given proper costings. When we raise issues in due course, we discover that whole areas of expenditure have not been taken into account. If the Minister assures me that all the costs, including the implied costs, of the measure have been taken into account, I shall not pursue the matter further.
It is interesting, as an example, to consider what happened with the development of Polaris submarines. We were given the costs of the development, but were not told how much it would cost to decommission the nuclear reactors, mainly because the Government did not know how the work would be done. I want an assurance that, in passing tonight's measure, we are not committing

245
ourselves to hidden costs about dismantling, decommissioning and so on at the end of the lifetime of the facilities—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the motion or the substance of the Bill.
Mr. Bennett: I was using Polaris as an example of the way in which the Government give the supposed costs, and later we find substantial items of cost left out. It seems reasonable for me to ask, following what happened with Polaris—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would have helped had the hon. Member been present for the Second Reading debate.
Mr. Bennett: As I explained, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was in Committee. It would have been impossible for me to be up there and down here at the same time, especially as I was responsible for moving amendments in Committee. I suggest that it is reasonable, therefore, for me to put questions to the Minister now.
I was saying in passing that the Government had not provided the costs of decommissioning Polaris submarines. I want to make sure that we know the full costs, including what will be involved in decommissioning, of the facilities which are the subject of the Bill. Will the Government bear the costs, or will they be borne by those running the facility? These are important questions because considerable problems arise when decommissioning facilities of this type. It is not something one can do easily, but will have a cost well into the future. Therefore, all that I am asking the Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was in the Chair for most of the debate on Second Reading when the Minister described the Bill's purpose and other hon. Members commented on it. The Bill does not seem to contain anything related to decommissioning of any kind.
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are making the point that I am trying to establish. A full account of the costs of those measures must be given to the House. The Government say that they are transferring something from a public to a private provision, which will create a problem in the future when we have to clear up the mess. As long as it was a public provision, we should have been told what those costs were in the money resolution, but now the position is changing and the matter ceases to be a Government provision and becomes a half-private one. I suspect that the private undertaking will make profits out of the proposal and the taxpayer will be left with the cost of clearing up the mess.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, believe that anyone involved in any sort of nuclear activity will not face future costs, I would concede that I was making a false point. But I suggest that it is a worry because there will be future costs. I want an assurance from the Minister that he will tell the House the cost to the taxpayer of clearing up those facilities. The sooner we can get rid of such facilities and stop needing to use them the better, but they will then have to be cleared up, which will involve expenditure. The private contractor will no longer make profits out of the facility, so will be reluctant to pay for the clearing-up costs. I am simply asking what the cost will be of
246
decommissioning the facility. If the Minister will tell me, I shall happily give way; if not, I shall wait until the end of the debate to see whether he will give us those answers.
During the past 20 years there has been a major nuclear programme in this country in both civil and military facilities, and the House of Commons has not been given the real cost of that programme—that is the problem. Every time one asks for answers to those questions, Ministers want to keep quiet. They do not want to talk about things that are either military secrets or something that they want to hide away. I simply want the Minister to give a clear undertaking now on what the full costs of the measure are likely to be, what the costs will be of making the district safe and the medical costs for people who work there, particularly as that plant has not had the best of records in terms of its design and the way in which it is being run. It has left people with considerable worries. I shall now listen with considerable interest to what the Minister has to say.
9.18 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I heard only the two winding-up speeches because I was also in Committee from 4.15 pm. I was in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair, and the Select Committee on Members' Interests, of which I am a member. That shows the number of activities that we have to undertake in the House if we are to carry out our job. It also shows that the notion that we can all break off at 5 pm and go home for tea is ludicrous. Today has demonstrated the absurdity of that notion, because we have much to deal with.
There are two paragraphs to the money resolution. In paragraph (a) we are about to authorise the expenditure by the Secretary of State for the formation of a company to carry out the designated activities in the Bill. That seems fair enough, covering as it does the cost of share issues, registration at Companies House, and so on. I suspect that it would involve a relatively small sum of money—but no doubt the Minister will illuminate that aspect when he replies. However, the resolution also authorises the Secretary of State to pay for the operation of any such company, which is rather different. The authority to finance the operation of a company carrying out designated activities could involve a large sum of money.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill refers to designated activities as follows:
"The activities that may be designated under subsection (1) above are any activities connected with the development, production or maintenance of nuclear devices or with research into such devices or their effects; and the premises that may be so designated are those which, when this Act comes into force, form part of the undertaking carried on by the Secretary of State and known as the Atomic Weapons Establishment."
In other words, the operation of that establishment will be authorised by the money resolution. We should like to know what sort of annual sum the Secretary of State has in mind.
If the activities are undertaken by a private company, as presumably will be the case, will that company's returns be included as part of the annual defence estimates? Clearly its work will be connected with the Ministry of Defence, and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is part of that establishment. It will be interesting to know whether right hon. and hon. Members will have to look up a private company's annual return to obtain figures of defence expenditure.

247
Will the company be one stage removed from Parliament, or will right hon. and hon. Members, by tabling parliamentary questions, be able to obtain information about it? Or will the Minister say, "That matter is for the company"? That ruse is often used by the Government. Under the resolution, the Secretary of State will be able to form a company, draw moneys to do that, and then finance its whole operation. It is therefore important that we receive from the Minister an assurance that financial or other questions about the company asked in Parliament will be answerable by the Minister, and that he will not shield himself behind the company's separateness.
The second paragraph of the resolution gives the Secretary of State responsibility
"for any liabilities (whether of such a company"—
that is, a company formed by the Secretary of State—
"or any other company which is or has been a contractor) which are liabilities arising out of the carrying on of activities so designated".
Under clause 1(2), the Secretary of State is given an open cheque in assuming responsibilities for the company in operation, and for any liabilities arising, and for any other company that is or has been a contractor. That is a wide range of potential liabilities.
The trade union brief on the Bill includes details of Government-owned, contractor-operated arrangements in the United States. It states:
"Thus, at the Rocky Flats site near Denver, one of the three main US nuclear weapons facilities, 62 lbs of plutonium have been discovered in the air ducts of the plant, which has had to be shut down. We have provided a detailed dossier of evidence to the Defence Committee on the situation in the United States. At the very least, the Government should conduct a full and open study of the US experience before proceeding further."
I do not accept that Government control over a private contractor is as great as Government control over a directly operated Government Department. Therefore, safety risks could increase. Does the resolution mean that the Secretary of State can assume liability when a company is at fault in what everybody accepts is a potentially extremely hazardous process? That seems to be the implication of the money resolution.
Suppose, in this wonderful world of enterprise culture from which the Minister is attempting to persuade the House that we shall benefit a company—I suspect that this is what the resolution is about—tenders for some work at a reduced cost which it cannot then carry out because it has made a miscalculation, which happens all the time, and it goes into liquidation. Is the Secretary of State guaranteeing to those companies which tender for work that he can bail them out of any designated activity? That is important because it warps the whole tendering procedure. A company will know that it has a guarantee, provided by the Government through the resolution. Safety is an important aspect.
Another point made in the excellent brief provided by a combination of trade unions is that safety is prejudiced where it is divided between contractors and the Ministry of Defence. That is obviously the case because countermanding instructions, different standards and similar sets of circumstances can create the potential for greater hazard. At the end of the day, it looks as though the taxpayer, through the Secretary of State, will be picking up the bill.
248
As it is clear that the designated activities which the money resolution specifically covers are important, it is pretty poor—I doubt whether this was mentioned in the previous debate—that the wide power of designation accorded to the Secretary of State under clause 1 is given by a negative procedure order. We are talking about an inherently hazardous procedure which produces weapons that can exterminate millions of people and the financing of those designated activities should be by means of an affirmative instrument rather than a negative procedure instrument.
The Minister was once a Whip and he has sat for many hours listening to and taking part in debates about the amount of time allocated to business in the House. That is why I started by talking about those people who think that the House of Commons can shut up and go home for tea at 5 o'clock because it is more comfortable and cosy that way. We do not have enough time to debate all the things that we should in the House. Affirmative resolutions should be the preferred system so that there is a requirement for a resolution of the House before authority is given to the Secretary of State, particularly on an important matter such as this.
Clause 3(2) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order repeal or amend any provision of the Schedule to this Act; but this power shall not be exercised so as to extend the application of any privilege or immunity which is for the time being provided for by that Schedule."
I welcome that important reservation. Paragraph 9(2) of the schedule states:
"The power of the Secretary of State under section 48(4) of that Act (Crown exemptions) shall include power, exercisable in the interests of the safety of the State, to provide for exemption, in relation to designated premises or activities carried on by a contractor at such premises, from all or any of the relevant statutory provisions within the meaning of Part I of that Act."
That refers to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.
We are discussing a money resolution that gives the Secretary of State power to meet all the costs of any contracting companies operating under the designation procedure. If the Secretary of State—we should like to know his reasons—removes the relevant section of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act and problems such as explosions or injuries arise, will the increased costs be guaranteed to the companies if they arise out of action under the schedule and come under the category of
"the interests of the safety of the State",
whatever that means?
This is an all-embracing resolution. I shall not quibble with the end of paragraph (b), which deals with
"liabilities to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed in or in connection with the carrying on of such activities."
That is welcome. There is no reason why people should suffer because of the Government's ideological commitment. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asked about the pensions which the Government will provide. I take it that this part of the financial resolution will cover pensions, but the Minister was evasive about whether new employees would have the same rights. He said that they had the right to enter a pension scheme, but I should like a little more detail.
If we carry out, as I hope we will, the terms of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, clause 6

249
of which obliges us to get rid of nuclear weapons—the change in circumstances in eastern Europe means that the Government can no longer point to the red menace in the east as the reason for purchasing Trident and for the deployment of Polaris, which is not deployed anyway because it is defective—does the last part of the resolution provide for a change from the designated operations and activities listed in the resolution to allow the Secretary of State to start on the momentous expenditure involved in changing from weapons of mass extermination and war to peaceful purposes? If the answer is yes, this will be one of the best financial resolutions that we have ever passed. If not, and if it is only about more warheads and more potential death and destruction, we should have to look at it very critically indeed.
9.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): For many years I wondered when I would be on the receiving end of a speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on a money resolution. I have listened to him for many hours late at night wishing that his speeches would come to an end. So tonight is a special occasion and I am delighted to see him in his place.
I felt that the debate on the money resolution went rather wide. We had a wide-ranging debate on Second Reading on the principle of the Bill and on its details. It is important that, in my reply, I am relevant to the money resolution, which refers to the narrow aims of the Bill to transfer the work force at the atomic weapons establishment from the civil service into a separate company, which will be taken over by the contractor, and will then be the employer.
The money resolution authorises the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of certain expenses which might be incurred by the Secretary of State, in connection with the introduction of contractor operation at the atomic weapons establishment. Those expenses include the costs involved in forming the company to which I referred, which will act as the employer of all AWE staff, and in operating the company until it is transferred to the ownership of the contractor who will operate the establishment.
I cannot give a precise forecast of the costs at this stage, but I can say with complete confidence that they will be small. The company will have no assets other than its staff and will be similar to the employing companies set up in 1987 at the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth. In that case, the cost of setting up the employing companies was just over £50,000 each. However, almost all of that was subsequently recovered.
The resolution also authorises payment of expenses that might arise if the Secretary of State takes back responsibility for the employing company after it has been transferred to a contractor. There are two situations in which that might arise. First, should the operating contract at AWE change hands at some time in the future, the staff and therefore the employing company would have to be transferred to the new contractor. In that event, it is possible that the company would be taken back by the Secretary of State for a brief period, before being acquired by the new contractor. However, it is unlikely that that would involve significant costs to the Secretary of State.
250
Also, it is conceivable that the Secretary of State might wish to take back control of AWE, and thus of the employing company, in an emergency. The Secretary of State would then be responsible for the liabilities of the company—for example, the salaries of the AWE work force. I must stress that we do not consider it likely that such an eventuality would occur, but it is prudent to make provision just in case.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What will be the position of the company if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) suggested, the demand for warheads for Trident suddenly ceased? Is there any requirement in the money resolution for compensation to the contractor, or does the contractor stand at risk?
Mr. Carlisle: I was coming to that at the end of my remarks. The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned one or two technical matters about the company. I should like to consider what he said and write to him, as I think that that would be the best way to give him the correct answer, and I should like to do so.
The hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked what we would do if we decided not to have a nuclear deterrent. The Government feel that the best security for our country is to retain a nuclear deterrent. Trident is an important part of that, and the AWE is an essential ingredient of Trident.
I had been led to believe—I was surprised by it—by the speech of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman that the Opposition also, for some reason, latterly believe in a nuclear deterrent. I know that the hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Denton and Reddish are loyal members of the Labour party. In Committee it would be interesting to know of their views on this matter, because it is one of the aspects that we shall concentrate on. Clearly, if the Opposition have any doubt about the nuclear deterrent, they ought to tell the several thousand employees at AWE that their jobs are truly at risk. In that case, there would be a considerable cost to the nation.
Mr. Cryer: This is why I raised the possibility of using people's skills for peaceful purposes. I believe that the Minister really has a soft spot for the 139 non-nuclear nations that signed the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Surely the Government cannot deny the possibility that, at some stage in the not-too-distant future, there may be a need to keep the jobs concerned, because the world rejects the deployment of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sure that the Minister has a soft spot for the rules of order governing a money resolution.
Mr. Carlisle: I certainly have—and I also have an extremely strong spot for the continued use of nuclear deterrence in an uncertain world.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that normal commercial prudence should take into account the possibility that we shall not need those deterrents? I should have thought that the Minister would welcome such a state of affairs, however it is achieved. He should therefore be able to tell us what would be the cost of changing the contract in regard to the establishment if we no longer needed to make the nuclear warheads. Although the Minister would still want a nuclear deterrent, I suggest

251
that there are other ways of providing it than Trident, which may well prove too costly even for the present Government.
Mr. Carlisle: That, too, is rather outside the scope of the Bill. I can only say that we believe in the nuclear deterrent: we feel that, in an uncertain world, it is a wise defence. It is interesting to note the divergence in defence policy in the Labour party; we shall have to watch that.
We predict that the sum required to support the Bill will not be large. I therefore urge the House to support the resolution.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred—

(a) in connection with the formation of any company formed with a view to, or for any purpose of, the carrying on of activities designated under the Act or with the operation of any such company wholly owned by the Secretary of State; or

(b) in assuming responsibility for any liabilities (whether of such a company or any other company which is or has been a contractor) which are liabilities arising out of the carrying on of activities so designated or liabilities to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed in or in connection with the carrying on of such activities.

European Community (Research and Development)
9.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I beg to move.
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7053/90 relating to a programme for research and technological development in the field of Human Capital and Mobility; endorses the Government's view that this European Community initiative will present an appropriate means of providing assistance to the mobility of scientists, hence enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness; and supports the Government's policy of pursuing clear scientific and managerial objectives within the programme to promote effective delivery of the specific training and mobility measures proposed.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important programme, which has several unusual features. The Government certainly recognise its importance to the scientific community of the United Kingdom, and this is a valuable opportunity for me to inform the House of the progress that is now being made in negotiations in Brussels.
First, let me explain the current state of the programme. I hope that the House will be indulgent if I venture a little into Euro-jargon. The programme known as "human capital and mobility" is a specific programme line in the Community's third framework programme for research and development for 1990 to 1994. Framework programme 3 has been agreed as a rolling programme—that is, overlapping with the one before and, we expect, the one that will follow. It has reduced the 22 programme lines in framework programme 2 to only six. At a cost of 518 million ecu—about £370 million—it is the third largest programme in the third framework.
As the explanatory memorandum explains, the human capital programme is the particular responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, and is of special significance to the five United Kingdom research councils. It follows on from three existing programmes under framework 2—SCIENCE, economic science and large facilities. Let me stress that the science programme is "horizontal"—it provides support for science in all areas of the natural sciences. Once the negotiations are more advanced, we shall be submitting a supplementary explanatory memorandum providing greater detail about the programme, as requested in the 30th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation.
The Commission's original proposal was issued on 28 April 1990. It proposed a programme entirely focused on support for research training, including the funding of 5,000 individual scientists, some through the development of networks of laboratories. I think it fair to say that this proposal caused some surprise and concern. There had been no formal process of consultation with member country representatives and the programme did not obviously continue the work and activities current under the SCIENCE, large facilities and SPES—stimulation programme for economic sciences—programmes.
We were, of course, fully aware of worries about this within the United Kingdom science community. We also knew of preliminary indications of concern on the same score from the European Parliament. In our judgment,

253
those problems were caused in the past by an absence of management committees for the three programmes. I shall return to management in a moment.
The explanatory memorandum to Parliament set out the Government's priorities for the programme in general terms. They were: to secure clear continuation of valued, existing activities; to achieve separation of the programme into four separate elements; to ensure visibility and transparency of scientific advice; and to ensure sound management and evaluation arrangements.
Since then, the thrust of United Kingdom activity—in co-operation with Community partners—has been to advance these priorities for inclusion in the programme.
If I could deal for a moment with procedure, the proposal comprises a brief formal element couched in legal terms with annexes that describe the content, management and funding distribution in more detail. Discussion has been taking place in recent weeks in an ad hoc group of CREST—the Scientific and Technical Research Committee—the senior body of scientific officials from member states, and this is likely to be resumed in January. Its aim has been to develop more widely acceptable proposals for the explanatory annexes. I am happy to be able to tell the House that very substantial progress has been made and that the United Kingdom has played a significant and constructive part, through the presentation of detailed suggestions for modifications to the Commission's original text. I believe that it would be useful to tell the House how the consensus is emerging.
First, there is a continuation of existing activities. The revised text, which still exists only as unofficial drafts, makes it clear that the programme should act as a natural continuation of, and extension from, the three programmes that I have mentioned. Of course, this is a new programme, so it will be important to build in a new dimension of coherence and complementarity between the various activities. The programme will therefore specify arrangements to support research training fellowships and maintain the sort of support for networks and twinnings currently achieved under the SCIENCE programme.
A consensus is emerging that there should be four elements, as the United Kingdom has proposed. There are the two that I have just mentioned and support for large facilities—primarily for access by visiting researchers, but with some scope for improving and enhancing facilities—and for a new series of European science conferences. We expect the European science Foundation in Strasbourg to be involved in these.
Achieving those objectives will depend crucially on the scientific advice. Great importance is rightly attached by the United Kingdom scientific community to the proper use of peer review in determining project support. At present, the Commission's advisers are the main source of advice in the three existing programmes under the second framework that I mentioned. However, the recent overall decision on management in Community programmes, called—I ask the House for its tolerance again—the "Comitology" decision, requires all programmes to have management committees, several different varieties of which are available.
That raises the question of how the implementation of this programme should be influenced and guided through advice from individual scientists; input from member states, including their national science organisations; and the Commission, whose legal responsibility it is to implement decisions of the Council of Ministers. There has
254
been discussion of this quite recently in Brussels, on the basis of detailed proposals from the United Kingdom. They have yet to be endorsed, but would provide a clear framework within which the role of each of the three sources of advice and influence would be defined.
The United Kingdom and several other member countries are advocating what is known as a type 3 committee, not the type 1 committee that the Commission has advocated in its formal proposal. I could rather quickly get into a thicket of technicalities and the House might not care to follow me too deeply into it, but, briefly, a type 3 committee has a greater capacity to influence the Commission's activities, as opposed to being just advisory.
The United Kingdom has been pressing for explicit reference to the need to define objectives for the programmes that can subsequently be externally evaluated. We believe that there is considerable scope far improvement in evaluation, and that view appears to be accepted by the Commission, which has recently been making greater efforts in that direction.
The United Kingdom has clear objectives for this important programme and we have been pursuing them with energy and application. We shall have to wait two or three months for a formal decision in the Council of Ministers. If enacted in the form that we advocate, we believe that United Kingdom scientists will derive substantial benefit from the programme, as indeed they have derived substantial benefit from the three programmes that I mentioned under framework programme 2. This programme is designed to foster and to extend the process of international collaboration in European science. We believe that to be important and, subject to the changes that I have outlined, the programme can be an useful further step in the right direction.
9.50 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: I listened with interest to what the Minister said about the programme and to the words that he chose to describe the Government's reaction to the initial proposals.
The Commission's proposal came very much from the personal output of Commissioner Pandolfi, a vice-president of the Commission. As the Minister said, it was issued without prior consultation and apparently without very much discussion in the Commission. The Minister said that the reaction of member Governments was one of surprise and concern.
We must consider what was originally proposed and how much it has changed. The original proposal was, I think, that some 80 per cent. of the 518 million ecu programme would be spent on fellowships, mainly post-doctoral fellowships, and that they would provide some 5,000 person years. Worked out as a proportionate share of United Kingdom contributions to European Community funding, that is about £11 million per annum from the United Kingdom.
The reaction of Governments was that the proposal was too large for the research training field, that it was too concentrated and that it proposed too big an increase in the number of fellowships. We must bear it in mind that up to 1985 the number of fellowships within European programmes was running below 50, but it increased from 150 in 1987 to 350 in 1988, so there has been a large recent increase, mainly due to the biology programme. The proposal was to increase it to 1,000 per annum.

255
The scaling back in the proposals, which are being circulated informally, means that the fellowship programme will be reduced from 80 to 50 per cent., that research networks and twinning should account for 30 per cent., the use of large facilities for 15 per cent. and European scientific conferences for 5 per cent. That will reduce the number of person years from 1,000 to 600 per year. From the soundings that I have taken, the British feeling is that the research networks should get a larger share than the 30 per cent. proposed. Matters are still not decided and a decision is not expected before April.
To see the background to this feeling, it is useful to look at what happened under the second framework programme in the fellowship programme. That was admirably evaluated by a panel under Heinrich Pfeiffer. It was a model of how to carry out evaluation. I know of no comparable evaluation of a comparable activity of a research council in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom received some 6 per cent. of the fellowships under the second framework programme but hosted some 33 per cent. of fellows. The United Kingdom produces 25 per cent. of the doctorates in the European Community compared with 27 per cent. in Germany and 25 per cent. in France. By comparison with that 25 per cent. of the doctorates produced, we received only 6 per cent. of the post-doctoral fellowships. Germany received 12 per cent., France 20 per cent. and Portugal—which produces only 1 per cent. of the doctorates—received 10 per cent. of the fellowships.
That created the somewhat extraordinary position in which Portugal was getting more fellowships than it had doctors to receive them—fellowships amounted to some 116 per cent. of the doctorates awarded in Portugal. Greece came second, with 46 per cent. followed by Belgium with 12 per cent. and Italy, 9 per cent.; Spain, 7 per cent.; the Netherlands, 6 per cent.; France, 3 per cent.; Germany, 2 per cent.; and the United Kingdom only 1 per cent. Only 1 per cent. of British doctorates had the expectation of getting a European Community fellowship.
With the best will in the world, that seems a bit odd. There is clearly an imbalance. Why? Is the United Kingdom a favourite destination because we speak English? Is it because we have a fine scientific tradition upon which scientists in Europe are anxious to draw? It is healthy to look at the reasons given by the fellows for seeking to work in particular countries and laboratories. Only one third of the fellows said that they considered the reputation of the host laboratory as an important consideration and only one fifth felt that the reputation of the supervisor was a consideration. Eighty-four per cent. said that the main reason was their wish to live abroad and to gain international experience. Is the United Kingdom acting as a surrogate America for footloose scientists in Europe who come, perhaps not for the beer, but for something other than scientific enlightenment?
Understandably, the evaluation report urged that there should be a much sharper rationale and objectives, a much clearer idea and style and an appropriate management system. The rationale that the Pfeiffer pannel suggested was a programme that seeks to achieve the movement of outstanding individuals to research institutions of their choice, that being the best way to transfer ideas. But it depends on what one means by "outstanding". I heard one
256
scientist say to another, "Of course, his Nobel prize was only in medicine." Perhaps "outstanding" in the report does not quite mean those standards.
If one looks at the standards of a Medical Research Council post-doctoral fellowship, a Commonwealth fund fellow in the United States or a Harkness fellow, it seems that the standards aimed at in the human capital and mobility programme are somewhat different. We should be clear on that. The aim is not really to cater for the outstanding research scientist who will clearly be a leader in his generation. It is to provide a basic groundwork experience for a substantial proportion of working research scientists. That is a wholly rational objective and it provides a realistic context in which to look at the scheme.
The Pfeiffer panel said that the rationale should be to increase sharply the number of researchers who have been trained in another country. That fits in with the widening of the international background of the good, working, practical research scientist. However, when the panel discusses objectives, the abundance of them suggests that any one of them seems not to be strong enough to justify a programme of such magnitude. The panel speaks of excellence, mobility, diversity, transfer of technology, exchange of methodology, use of large research facilities, multi-disciplinarity, reduction of the brain drain of scientists leaving Europe, integration of the less-favoured regions and the openness to scientists from the European Free Trade Association and from eastern Europe. That is admirable, but the abundance of objectives suggests that there is still a lack of focus and of clear intention. If we recognise that the rationale aims to achieve a widespread international experience as an element in the experience of young scientists, mobility is a sufficient objective.
Where do the proposals leave us in terms of the prospect for the bulk of the programme? We are still talking about a substantial number of scientist years—perhaps not 5,000, but it would be somewhat over 3,000, or 600 per annum. On past figures, the numbers coming to the United Kingdom might be 200 and on the old ratios, the numbers going from the United Kingdom might be 30 to 40. If the United Kingdom came up to the levels of France and of Germany, it might be about 60 to 70. That means that the number of scientists to be received into the United Kingdom is larger than the number of scientists financed at this level by any research council, and the number leaving the United Kingdom would be as large as a big research council. We are not talking about a marginal element in the post-doctoral experience and training of scientists in the United Kingdom. Is that what we want? It may be, but there are some sordid practical points to consider first.
How will the Treasury argue about the additionality of the expenditure? Will the Treasury argue that the number of scientists received in this country should be counted as expenditure from the science budget, or will it count the number of scientists of British origin who are studying abroad as the figure to be notionally charged against the science budget—or neither?
What should our attitude be? Seeing the broad shape of the scheme, should we welcome it as spreading British influence, the British scientific tradition and the British scientific culture, or should we be cautious about losing British know-how and misapplying scarce British resources needed for British science?

257
I come down firmly on the view that we should continue to and be glad to extend the influences of British scientific culture. That is of undoubted benefit to the country in the long run, and to Europe. We must also go on to argue that if imbalance and unevenness are inevitable in the structure of a programme such as this, they must be redressed in some way. The pressures from the Government have been to try to redress them within the human capital and mobility programme; hence the call for an increase in support for research networks and twinning access to services provided in large research facilities, and for the organisation of European scientific conferences. I do not think that that goes wide enough, because I do not think that the imbalance can be redressed in that way.
If we look at where British scientific and technological interests lie, we can see a pressing need to increase our technological competitiveness. There are substantial areas where we can learn a great deal from other European countries. For example, there is obviously a capability in production engineering in Germany that is not as strongly represented in the United Kingdom. Although Britain produces admirable industrial designers, their use in British industry falls far behind the use of industrial designers in Italian industry. There will be other areas in which we have much to learn from other European countries and the redress of the balances should be sought across the European framework programmes as a whole.
If that is the framework of thinking, what about the other heads of expenditure under this line in the framework programme? The scientific networks are undoubtedly important. It is of great value to be able to travel and visit other people working in the same areas. If one compares the freedom with which, let us say, British Aerospace travels to and from Toulouse on the airbus project with the parsimony with which co-operating groups of scientists are able to travel between universities in France and the United Kingdom, one can see that there is a gross inefficiency in the networking of scientists.
To suggest that extra money is needed to staff large facilities implies that something has gone wrong with the budgeting since the facilities were first proposed. The budgeting should have provided for efficient use of the facilities on the scale at which they were being created. It is arguable that international access to those facilities is different from just increasing the purely British access. That should have been covered one way or another and it should not be a permanent feature of a programme such as this. For example, one does not build a school and then institute a separate programme to produce children to fill it. One does not build a power station and then set about finding a market for the power generated. The operating expense of large facilities needs to be planned integrally with the capital cost from the beginning.
The subject of European conferences raises a separate issue. It is admirable that the European Science Foundation should undertake the task of organising them, but, in itself, the foundation deserves consideration and funding on a basis different from merely the organisation of conferences. Conferences may be an important part of communication, but the European Science Foundation, as the meeting place of the science funding bodies of the different European countries, warrants a larger role than merely the organisation of conferences. If it has that larger role, the organisation of conferences is purely incidental to it.
258
I now come to the management of the programme. Is the practice of choosing institutions and allowing them to choose fellows right, regardless of whether it is supervised by a type I committee, for which the Commission argues, or a type 3 committee which, as the Minister explained, gives greater powers to the scientists to influence the Commission. That raises a wider question about methods of evaluation and organisation of national research funding.
The Pfeiffer panel is an admirable model of how to go about evaluation. However, if that model were applied to national funding programmes of scientific activities some major issues would be raised. There are certainly grounds for unease in the United Kingdom. For example, the level of grant for doctoral students is appallingly low and there is a lack of career prospects for young scientists once they are trained. There is a lack of follow-up by the research councils of former grant-holders or even principal investigators.
There are similar problems in France, such as the rigidity of the CNRS. In Germany, the length of the apprenticeship period is excessive. The apprentice scientist does not get out from under the professor until his mid-thirties. In Italy, the number of jobs which individuals hold is a problem.
I do not in the least wish to tear up the entire structure of European science and start again, but there should be consultation between the authorities in different countries about how they see national patterns evolving in relation to the European pattern. The machinery does not exist within the United Kingdom Government at present to make an appropriate contribution to such dialogue.
The Minister who opened the debate is not responsible for the European framework programme. The Minister who is responsible not only is a member of another House but belongs to another Department. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for representing Britain on science programmes in the European Community.
Following an interesting report in The Independent yesterday, we look forward to hearing the result of the Prime Minister's reflections over Christmas on the organisation of the machinery of government in Britain. The article said of the structure within the United Kingdom and Britain:
"science and technology has been crippled in terms of representation in Brussels, compared to the French and the Germans. Both these countries have strong, central ministries for research and technology, headed by forceful politicians who have secured their national advantage in negotiations with the European Commission. In contrast, putting the EC case for British technology has been the responsibility of the junior Minister in the DTI, whereas scientific research which falls within the DES's remit has gone unrepresented."
That is not satisfactory management of United Kingdom science. Participation in shaping European science for the future must be a major consideration in the appropriate machinery of Government in Britain. We cannot simply ignore the structures that exist in other European Community member countries.
That is nowhere more starkly borne home than in the programme that we are debating, with a fair degree of information about what is going on; it costs some £11 million of British public expenditure. Yet tomorrow the Science and Engineering Research Council will make decisions on how to make good the shortfall from the science budget announced by the Government of some £40 million in the next fiscal year. That has been done without

259
any debate in this place or any consideration by Ministers about the specific effects on the SERC of the decisions in the science budget.
British science is in a deeply unhappy state. European programmes cannot possibly make good the troubles that we face, but at least we can give this programme a cautious welcome in the sense that it is a building block in a framework which can be built to the greater advantage of the United Kingdom in a more adequate framework of science policy.
10.14 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I do not wish to add a great deal to what has been said. I agree with the comments by those on both Front Benches. The Minister managed to open the debate with a clarity which described technology without being too technical and comitology without being comatose. The complexities of the programme are great. Indeed, it is difficult for the House in such a short debate to understand and explore in detail precisely what is being provided for.
I agree with the burden of some comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) about shortcomings in research, particularly blue sky research, in the United Kingdom in recent years. When one talks to university vice-chancellors and principals one hears the complaint year on year that not enough pure research is taking place and that industry is leading the nature of research, which means that research tends to be rather too specific. A consequence is that many university laboratories and engineering houses have become testing shops for products which have already been developed.
It is welcome to see a programme in the European Community which appears to allow for a considerable amount of mainly blue sky research to take place. It is to be hoped that a consequence of the programme will be that original thought, original design and original technique will come within Europe and be developed throughout industry.
I agree with the emphasis of the motion on enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness. I hope that the Government will ensure that this programme does not disappear into the European bureaucracy and that we can evaluate its contribution to science within industry.
The programme will be a success if it means that European companies make products and employ people to manufacture products that bring us to the forefront of world science and technology, which will mean that we compete fully with the Japanese and Americans. However, if it merely ensured that scientists had the opportunity to partake in some nice, interesting research that had no ultimate practical applications, it would be a failure. Therefore, I hope that the Government will ensure that, within the Community, this programme is fully monitored so that we may see some real results which will enable us to point to another European success in research and development.
10.18 pm
Mr. Alan Howarth: This has been a helpful debate. It has been useful to the House to hear the views of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and the hon.
260
and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), both of whom represent their Front Benches. It is pleasing that there has been considerable agreement among the parties on much of the ground that has been covered.
The hon. Gentleman wondered why such a high proportion of beneficiaries under the science programme in framework 2 had come to this country. As he surmised, I suspect that it is because of the strength of science and the attractiveness of our country to European students to work and learn here. That is part of my response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. British scientists aspire to further opportunities. We all want more resources to be made available for science and to see the extraordinary wealth of scientific talent in this country find its fullest opportunity. But I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that public expenditure in support of the science base has increased by 23 per cent. above inflation during the period of Conservative rule. We have not stinted on resources. There are periods when expansion is faster and slower, but let nobody doubt the desire of the Government to give the best support we can, on behalf of society at large, to the quality and achievements of British science.
I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that industry was playing perhaps too large a part—was making up some kind of shortfall—in support of science. Many others believe that there has not been a sufficiently strong research and development effort in British industry. It is partly for that reason that the Government have chosen to withdraw funding from near-market research, so making it inevitably a requirement of our industries that they invest in the research that they properly should be doing themselves. By that means, we are able to transfer the resources that would otherwise be spent in the area of near-market research to pure science and that is already leading to a strengthening of our science base.
I am anxious to respond to some of the points of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. I was in sympathy with almost everything he said about European framework programmes 2 and 3. It is right that evaluation needed improving and that the Pfeiffer report passed some very severe strictures on the evaluation that took place. One of our primary concerns is to make sure that in the commitment of substantial added resources to that programme, we make sure that the priorities are sensibly identified, that there is proper management, that what we are supporting is support for excellence and that we are developing a programme for education and training for the body of scientists, who should benefit from an experience of quality in Europe as a whole.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South stressed that we had not done as well as we might under framework programme 2 and the SCIENCE programme. It is fair to remind him that, from the point of view of experience so far, on average the United Kingdom has received back 22 per cent. of framework programme funds, which is more than a juste retour.
Under the SCIENCE programme, which we expect the human mobility programme to continue, nearly 30 per cent. of all recipient laboratories were in the United Kingdom. I take it as a benefit to us that we had so many people coming to study and work here. I take it as a matter of pride for British science, as does the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, that the United Kingdom took part in more than 70 of the 114 laboratory twinnings.

261
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the range of objectives in framework programme 3 and in the human mobility line was perhaps too diffuse. He recited a series of quoted purposes which he finally characterised as admirable, and on that we all agree. But again, the key point is sharpness of focus to ensure that the objectives are clearly identified and are right.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South rated as a high priority, and a valuable feature of the programme, the emphasis on mobility and networking. Later in his remarks he referred to the problems of developing satisfactory career structures and opportunities for research scientists. Those are serious problems, and it is a help to know that the framework programme will at least ensure that there is a well-designed, full range of opportunities for further education and training for post-doctoral scientists. That will give strength to those who have the benefit of participating in the programme and will mean that they are better placed in the competitive stakes for subsequently seeking more permanent appointments in their careers.
Clearly, in the world of modern science in which there is a high degree of specialisation, if people are working at or near the frontiers of science there will inevitably be difficulties in the provision of long-term career opportunities for people who are highly specialised. The best people proceed with confidence from one contract to the next, if they do not actually hold long-term university posts or have long-term appointments as professional scientists. But if others move from academic work into industrial employment, it is not necessarily a terrible misfortune. There are great benefits for our economy and the hon. Member for Motherwell, South referred to the need for improved technology transfer and for the high degree of academic skill that some of our best scientists and engineers have to be transferred to and reflected in the production processes in United Kingdom industry. Therefore, I am not discouraged when I view the scene.
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Motherwell, South that the Treasury will take a more benign view than he expects. I do not indulge in vacuous optimism, but we should put the expenditure on the programme in proportion. The participation of the Department of Education and Science in framework programme 3, involves under 2 per cent. of the science budget. Therefore, our participation does not have any serious or realistically measurable effect on the size of the science budget as a whole. The hon. Gentleman's fears about additionality are groundless.
The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the problems of management at the large facilities in western Europe, on which we keep a vigilant watch. He will have noted that last week, in a decision shared with our Community partners, we refused to agree to a proposed 2 per cent. increase in the CERN budget for 1992. We are determined that there should be proper control of such massive organisations which dispose of immense sums of money.
A positive feature of the programme is that it intends, realistically, through the mobility programme, to bring those facilities into fuller use and to give a larger number of scientists the opportunity to use them and gain experience.
I was pleased that we had such a wide measure of agreement, both in our scepticism of aspects of the
262
management of framework programme 2 and in the essential purposes that we recognise as valuable in framework programme 3.
I parted company with the hon. Gentleman on his familiar strictures about the condition of British science. I shall not repeat what I said in response to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. As for the observations of the hon. Member for Motherwell, South about the structure and organisation, and responsibility in Government for science, he looks forward with tremendous relish to the day when the millenium dawns and he presides over a separate Ministry of Science. However, he and all those involved should reflect carefully on whether an individual, specialist science ministry would carry the force and clout in Whitehall that he and I would want it to do, in recognition of our concerns for the well-being of British science.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that some of us went to the interesting lecture, excellently presented, by the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) at the Royal Society? I understand that the hon. Member for Havant is taking a group of scientists to see the Prime Minister on this very subject on, I think, 14 January. This should be a question that is open to discussion. I understand that the Secretary of State for Education arid Science is to be there—perhaps he will report to the House on that interesting meeting.
Mr. Howarth: I think that we can all readily say that my right hon. Friends are concerned to find the best system within Government for supporting British science.
10.29 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am prompted to intervene by the last interchange, the question of the responsibility for science within government, and by some of the Minister's comments—although I do not want to be as specific as the debate, which naturally focused on a particular programme.
At last summer's British Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Swansea, it was widely commented that there is still inadequate recognition in government of the importance of science. This is not meant as a personal criticism—as the Minister knows—but that is borne out by the very fact that within the DES, science is so sidelined that it is the part-responsibility of a non-Secretary of State—that is, of a junior Minister—and has a relatively small budget. It is virtually buried in the Department of Education and Science, instead of being an activity which could be influential across many Departments. That matter is of considerable academic and practical concern.
I do not dissent from the Minister's claims about the Treasury's increase in science spending in the most recent public expenditure round. However, he must not be complacent. He will no doubt recall the presidential address given at the British association's conference. Although it did not relate specifically to further and higher education and current academic performance among both postgraduates and leading scientists, it foretold a future of some doom if our education system does not significantly improve.
This country cannot afford to be complacent. In the forecast era of considerably more mobility within Europe, we shall be more at risk from scientific interchange in more

263
competitive circumstances and suffer some disadvantage in developing the seed corn of scientific advance, unless we show considerably more commitment to the prerequisites for more successful science.
Mr. Alan Howarth: As I told the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), we have made a major increase of 23 per cent. in real terms in science funding during the life of this Government. That is taken on board by all scientists, and naturally the British Association does as much pleading as others for yet more increased expenditure.
I dissent very much from the hon. Gentleman when he says that science is somehow sidelined in my Department. My right hon. Friend is Secretary of State for both education and science, and he gives high weighting to his responsibilities in relation to the latter. Science pervades the whole of modern government. There is not a Department in Whitehall to which science is not immensely important.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) must always take that into account in his consideration of what might be an appropriate structure. Will he, in his putative Department of Science, be such a powerful ringmaster that he will be able to crack his whip and have the big beasts respond in the way that he wants?
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was absolutely right to say that science teaching in our schools must be improved. We agree entirely and that is why we introduced the subject into the national curriculum, which is laying the foundations for an across-the-board increase in the level of attainment in scientific studies.
Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his mini-speech by way of an intervention. As to the structure of government, there is a proper constitutional argument to be made about whether an independent science Ministry
264
could be justified, in terms of having the clout within government. Such an argument could properly be made in respect of any proposed Department.
There is a widely held view within the scientific community that science is not perceived as sufficiently important in the whole focus of Government investment and interest, not just in the Department of Education and Science, and the president of the British Association set out what will happen if we do not attach significant importance to it and provide more investment. That the Government are aware of the dangers of complacency is a start. It would be a good thing if the House and the Government put science more regularly on the agenda, because without good science we shall not do very well in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7053/90 relating to a programme for research and technological development in the field of Human Capital and Mobility; endorses the Government's view that this European Community initiative will present an appropriate means of providing assistance to the mobility of scientists, hence enhancing the development of European science and Europe's industrial competitiveness; and supports the Government's policy of pursuing clear scientific and managerial objectives within the programme to promote effective delivery of the specific training and mobility measures proposed.

CENSUS (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL [LORDS]
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, in respect of the Census (Confidentiality) Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Hon. Members: Object.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Ordered,
That Sir George Young be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Mr. David Lightbown be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Darren Brook
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick ]
10.35 pm
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: It is with great sadness that I have to bring the case of the late Darren Brook, a young offender, aged 19, to the Floor of the House of Commons. Darren was convicted of an assault on a publican. It was his first offence. He had never been in trouble before. He was of previous good character. He was given a nine-months prison sentence in a prison for young offenders. He was taken to Durham jail, a hard-line prison. There he was kept for three days. During those three days, he was subjected to the most brutal treatment of any prisoner in the prison, the perpetrator of which is now serving a life sentence.
During those three days, Darren was bullied and beaten, and even had his head shaved. All hon. Members should read what the court heard went on in those three days. It is a very sad case, and an indictment of our prison system. He was beaten up, he had a black eye for at least two days, he had a severe cut on one side of his eye and one on his hand, which was so swollen that his knuckles could not be seen. At some time during the 56 hours that he was in Durham prison, his head was shaved.
The prisoners saw what happened, but in prison no one squeals. No one says anything. They knew that this lad was being subjected to bullying and brutality, but no one else heard or saw it.
At the end of the trial, Judge Bell asked why Brook had been locked up with Carter, the man serving a life sentence, who had a long criminal record, and why prison officers did not notice injuries to Brook when other inmates clearly spotted them. After being told that an internal investigation had found no explanation, the judge said:
"I take the view that what has been revealed indicates barbaric practices perpetrated by one prisoner on another, which should not have been tolerated by any civilised society."
All this happened in one of Her Majesty's prisons. A young lad, a first offender, went to serve his punishment there and ended up in a wooden box. That should not happen in this day and age.
I have already called for an independent inquiry into why this happened. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has called for one too. I do not know whether there will be one. I am told that the governor of Durham prison has conducted an internal inquiry. That means nothing, because he has done his job in his own kingdom, and he would certainly try to paint it white.
Certain questions must be asked. Was there a lack of supervision? Was there undermanning at the prison? Could it happen again? That is what the parents of the child came to see me about—
Mr. John Cummings: Does my hon. Friend recall the case of Richard Rowland, who committed suicide in Durham prison 18 months ago? His family had begged and pleaded with the prison authorities to supervise him because they were extremely worried about his mental health. That was not done, and he committed suicide while his cellmates slept. That, too, was due to manning levels. Something must be done to afford some security to the relations of men serving time.
Mr. Campbell: I could not agree more. I was coming to that point. Supervision is important in prisons such as Durham. I have contacted the authorities who run the gaol. They told me that, at certain times of day, they are not in control of it. Someone had better go and have a look at Durham prison, or we shall have another Brixton on our hands.
There were no regular cell inspections; the authorities have not got the time. There was no observation, because they do not have the time. The officers do not work much overtime, and if they do, they are given days off in lieu—if they are lucky.
Why was this young man not sent to a young offenders prison straight away? Why are young offenders sent to hard prisons and put in cells with hardened criminals? These questions can be answered only by an independent inquiry. There should also have been an inquiry into the suicide case that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) mentioned.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: How did the man die?
Mr. Campbell: He died from bullying and beatings. He was forced to tear his pillow case into strips, whereupon the perpetrator tied a noose to the bars of the cell and made the victim put his head into it. The third man in the cell put a towel over his head because he did not want to watch. He said afterwards that he heard Brook say, "I don't want to die."
The perpetrator, who is now serving a life sentence, kicked the stool away, and that was the end of Darren Brook. I have heard it said, although it has been denied, that if prisoners are in a cell with someone who hangs themselves, they get remission because of the trauma that they have experienced.
Mr. Skinner: Is that so?
Mr. Campbell: It is true. That will also come out in the inquiry—but in an independent inquiry, not one carried out by the governor. The House and the Opposition demand an independent inquiry.
10.44 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am sure that we can agree that it is a matter of great regret that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) needed to accomplish this task this evening, and to raise this subject. I think that he was quite right to do so, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) would probably also have wished to be associated with the debate.
I do not think that I need to add to what has already been said by the hon. Members for Blyth Valley and for Easington (Mr. Cummings) about the distressing nature of the events surrounding the death and murder of Darren Brook. The death of any prisoner in custody is a matter of great regret. It is especially tragic when it occurs in such violent circumstances, and involves such a young man. It is a waste of life. It is a grievous loss to his family and to his friends, and I take the opportunity to express sympathy to them on behalf of the whole prison service.
I should add that such an incident is also obviously a traumatic experience for the prison. I share the hon. Member's profound concern. There were certainly warning signs which could, and perhaps should, have been apparent despite the extremely short interval between

267
Darren Brook's reception and his death at the hands of his cellmate. As the hon. Member for Blyth Valley has said, the cellmate has recently been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, but I cannot let the fact that a fellow inmate has been found guilty of this horrific murder absolve me, or the prison, from our responsibility to protect anyone in our care.
As the hon. Member for Blyth Valley has said, Darren Brook was received into the young offender wing at Durham Prison on 3 January, having been sentenced to nine months custody in a young offenders institution, for offences of wounding and occasioning actual bodily harm. It is normal practice for young offenders sentenced to a period of custody to be received into a young offender wing at a local prison to be assessed for allocation to a suitable young offender institution. It is important to stress that young offenders at Durham are kept separate from the rest of the prison and do not mix with adult offenders.
However, as the hon. Gentleman said, early on the morning of 6 January, Darren Brook was found hanged in his cell, which he shared with two other young offenders. His two cellmates at first claimed that he had committed suicide. The police were immediately called in, and one of the cellmates, Kenneth Carter, was subsequently charged with the murder. As we know, he has since been found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
It is clear that there was lack of supervision during the period between Mr. Brook's reception into the prison and his subsequent death. The hon. Gentleman has correctly pointed out that statements from other prisoners appear to show that Carter assaulted Darren Brook on the evening of 4 January, and that he had a swollen right eye, broken skin on his right hand and a bruised left hand as a result.
During the course of the next day, the young prisoners on the wing were allowed a recreation period, supervised by prison staff. No member of staff noticed the injury to Darren Brook's eye, or the other injuries, either then or during the rest of the day. Darren Brook did not complain or seek medical treatment for his injuries. Nor did he report the bullying by his cellmates to a member of staff. However, it is clear from the evidence of the third occupant of the cell that his condition was the result of attacks by Carter.
When this happened, the newly-appointed governor had not yet taken up his post. He arrived on 7 January and immediately began a full investigation into both the circumstances of the death and the management of the young offenders wing. It is therefore not true to say that the governor was, in effect, trying to cover his tracks. He was a new appointment; he had not been associated with the prison before; and he came in to find a very serious problem.
Let me explain what happened subsequently: it may allay the hon. Gentleman's fears somewhat. The governor discovered several shortcomings in the management of the young offender wing. There was no selection process for allocating young offenders to cells; the majority of young offenders were housed three to a cell; the young offender regime was poor, with little opportunity for constructive use of time or activities to help personal development. Certainly staff continuity on the wing was poor; because of the wide range of work undertaken by local prisons such
268
as Durham, together with the importance of servicing the courts, there were frequent abrupt changes of staff on the wing.
No cell inspections or visits to young offenders were taking place, as the hon. Member for Blyth Valley has pointed out. Too many young offenders were being housed in Durham: at the time of the incident, there were 40, and allocations to young offender institutions were often unreasonably delayed.
The governor reported his findings, and made immediate changes to improve conditions. The practice of housing young offenders three to a cell ceased immediately. Young offenders are now allocated to young offender institutions within three days of being sentenced, with the vast majority being transferred to suitable establishments within one week of arrival at Durham. The number of young offenders held has been considerably reduced: at present, only 14 are being held in Durham.
The regime has been improved, and, although the wing is not intended to replace a young offender institution and will never be able to offer the wide range of educational and recreational facilities that are available at a proper young-offender establishment, young offenders now have the opportunity to attend education classes and enjoy an enhanced programme of physical recreation.
Staff continuity on the wing has been made a priority, and there is now an identifiable wing manager. Wing supervision has also been enhanced by the daily visit of a member of the senior prison management. In addition, all young offenders are now seen on a weekly basis by a member of the board of visitors. But perhaps the most important change is that staff on the wing are now given explicit instructions, with clear briefing, on their responsibility to detect bullying.
At the conclusion of the trial of Kenneth Carter, the trial judge, Mr. Justice Potts, asked the prison governor to comment on the circumstances surrounding the murder. The governor described the changes that I have just outlined. Mr. Justice Potts expressed his satisfaction at the steps taken at the prison to avoid a similar occurrence—and I believe that the correct action has been taken to avoid any further mishaps of this kind.
The hon. Member for Blyth Valley made a number of allegations, and I hope that what I have said has allayed his fears. I fully understand his deep and passionate feeling about the circumstances surrounding the death of Darren Brook.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I am pleased to learn that changes have been made, but I must again make my most important allegation. I have spoken to the people who run the prison, and I have been told that, at certain times of the day, they are not in control. They say that they are overworked and undermanned, and have not enough time. The Minister has said that things have changed, but that is what I was told today, and, if that is what I am being told today, as far as I am concerned nothing has changed.
Mrs. Rumbold: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. If that is his most recent information, I shall take the matter back and make inquiries on his behalf. I shall try to reassure him later, by letter, if not by means of a personal visit. I am making a great effort to try to visit as many institutions as I can and intend to come to the north-east to see for myself some of the institutions and establishments there. It is important absolutely to satisfy

269
oneself that our establishments are run as humanely and satsifactorily as possible. Given the circumstances surrounding local prisons in many busy towns and cities, it is even more important to ensure that, having happened once, such an occurrence does not happen in the future. It is my intention—I know that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that such an event should not occur in future.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that bullying among the young offender population is a problem that the prison service shares with many other residential institutions. In 1984, we took action to give guidance to all those who deal with young offenders. We gave advice on how to detect and prevent the spread of
270
bullying among young offenders. We made the advice widely available throughout the young offender system. The nature of the bullying of Darren Brook by Kenneth Carter, which escalated in the course of 24 hours from simple physical abuse to murder, was of a very different order from anything previously encountered in the prison service. Obviously, we hope that that was a unique event, but certain lessons have definitely been learned.
As I have said, I give my personal undertaking that I shall investigate the hon. Gentleman's assertions and come back to him in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Investment Funds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General whether it is the practice of the Serious Fraud Office to monitor funds offering to guarantee above-market interest rates.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The role of the Serious Fraud Office is to investigate and prosecute serious and complex fraud. Regulation of investment business is the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board together with the self-regulating organisations recognised by the Securities and Investments Board in accordance with the Financial Services Act 1986.

  King's College (Baby Case)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Crown prosecution service received the file on the King's college baby case from Scotland Yard; and when a decision will be taken on prosecution.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service is currently considering a report received from the Metropolitan police on 4 December 1990. That report requires careful consideration and further inquiries may be requested. It is not therefore possible at this stage to give a firm indication of when a decision on whether to institute criminal proceedings will be taken. Once a decision has been taken I will write to the hon. Member informing him of that decision.

ENERGY

  Coal Mining Subsidence (Blight)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to introduce legislation to give protection and compensation to householders and landowners whose homes and land are blighted by coal mining subsidence.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are committed to introducing a Bill to reform the arrangements for repair and compensation where property and land are damaged by coal mining subsidence. This will be done as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to be able to give a regional breakdown of the applications made for shares in each of the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 13 December, if he will provide 96
  statistics of what the number of applicant customers on the customer priority application forms is expressed as a percentage of all domestic customers in the franchise area for each of the 12 regional electricity companies of England and Wales.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Statistics on the numbers of customers applying on customer priority application forms are not available on a basis consistent with statistics on the total number of domestic customers for each regional electricity company.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has called for an analysis of who sold and bought regional electricity company shares on the first day of trading.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department will consider carefully the dealings in the regional electricity company shares during the early aftermarket with a view to applying this knowledge as appropriate to the generator flotation.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give his most up-to-date estimate of the percentage of total share capital allocated to overseas investors in the flotation of the 12 regional electricity companies which have been sold on the United Kingdom stock market in the first 48 hours of trading.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such estimate is available.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy who were the lead underwriters for the flotation of the regional electricity companies; and whether they advised on the price of the shares.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The lead underwriters for the flotation of the regional electricity companies were J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Co. Ltd. which, among others, advised the Government on pricing of the shares.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his total expenditure to date in the current year on electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Total costs of privatisation will be published in the appropriation accounts once flotations have been completed. Expenditure to the end of March 1990 amounted to £18·7 million and provision has been made for £34·5 million for the current year. Latest forecasts of requirements for 1990–91 will be published as part of the spring supplementary estimates early next year.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to be in a position to state how many applications for shares in one or more regional electricity companies were received from households involving more than one applicant.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information will not be available in the form requested.

  Unburnt Methane
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his most up-to-date estimate of the percentage loss to the atmosphere of unburnt methane from(a) industrial boilers, (b) commercial boilers, (c) domestic central heating boilers, (d) gas stoves and (e) gas fires.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The percentage leakage of unburnt methane from gas appliances is generally very low, but will depend on both the kind of device and the state of its maintenance.
  97
  Work under way for the Department of the Environment at the Warren Spring laboratory to improve the national inventory of emissions includes the assessment of leakage from broad categories of gas usage, but figures for the appliances mentioned are not yet available.

  Electricity Supply Industry
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to review the connection between the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Office of Fair Trading in relation to monopoly and competition issues in the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no such plans. The respective functions of the Director General of Electricity Supply and the Director General of Fair Trading are set out in the legislation; liaison is a matter for the two directors.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what evidence he has of concert parties in the acquisition of shares in(a) South Wales Electricity or (b) any other of the 12 regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My Department is not aware of any evidence that two or more organisations have acted in concert to acquire shares in any regional electricity company.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the Director General of OFFER regarding stake-building in the 12 regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

  National Power and PowerGen
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he will announce the price of the shares in National Power and PowerGen; and when trading in those shares will commence.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The flotation of National Power and PowerGen will take place in February. The precise dates of the offer will be announced closer to the time.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to retain the same advisers for the sale of National Power and PowerGen as advised him on the sale of the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Most of my advisers for the sale of National Power and PowerGen have been appointed for some months. Some of them are the same as for the sale of the regional electricity companies, and some are different.

  Regional Electricity Companies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what is his policy on mergers and takeovers of or among regional electricity companies; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the 12 regional electricity companies' chairmen regarding mergers and takeovers within the electricity distribution industry;

  (3) whether he expects to review the 15 per cent. maximum on individual shareholdings in the 12 regional electricity companies in the next five years; and if he will make a statement.
  98
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's policy with regard to the special share they hold in each of the 12 regional electricity companies is set out in section 1, chapter 1 of the prospectus for the 12 regional electricity companies dated 21 November 1990. Any merger or takeover would in addition be subject to the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  East Midlands Electricity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the delay in restoring electricity supplies by East Midlands Electricity.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have received representations from a group of hon. Members and have agreed to meet them to discuss their concerns. I understand that the electricity supply situation in the east midlands has substantially improved.

  Mr. Robert Malpas
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply of 23 November,Official Report, column 251, whether any restrictions have been placed on Mr. Robert Malpas accepting directorships in companies.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on 30 November 1990,Official Report, column 517.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Financial Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to bring forward proposals to give the power to undertake prosecutions for regulatory offences to the Financial Reporting Council; and whether he intends that power of prosecution to be limited to offences committed after the power was granted.

  Mr. Redwood
  I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the power under section 245C of the Companies Act 1985, as inserted by the Companies Act 1989, to authorise a person to apply to the court under section 245B of the 1985 Act for a declaration that the annual accounts of a company do not comply with the requirements of the 1985 Act, and for an order requiring the directors of the company to prepare revised accounts. I expect in the near future to be able to make a statutory instrument designating the Financial Reporting Review Panel Ltd, established under the auspices of the Financial Reporting Council, for those purposes, once satisfied about the matters set out in section 245C(1). If so, the panel will be able to exercise this power only in respect of accounts for years beginning on or after 23 December 1989 as a result of transitional provisions applicable to section 245B of the 1985 Act. Neither the Financial Reporting Council nor its subsidiary bodies expect to prosecute offences under the Companies Act.

  Accountancy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last discussed its disciplinary scheme with the institutions representing the accountancy profession.
  99
  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend has not discussed their disciplinary arrangements with representatives of the accountancy profession. However, before he can recognise supervisory bodies under part II of the Companies Act 1989 he will need to be satisfied that they have adequate arrangements and resources for the effective monitoring and enforcement of compliance with their rules, including those relating to the discipline and expulsion of members.

  Companies Act 1989
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to commence provisions of the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yesterday I signed an order which commences certain provisions of the Act. Section 7, in so far as it inserts new section 233(5) into the 1985 Act—approval of defective accounts—and section 12—revision of defective accounts—will commence on 7 January 1991 but will apply with respect to accounts for financial years commencing on or after 23 December 1989. Sections 125 and 127(1), (2) and (4)—delivery of documents to the registrar—will commence on 7 January 1991. Section 135—the power to make regulations on orders imposing restrictions on shares—will come into force on 7 January 1991. Paragraph 10 of schedule 19—removal of restriction on transfer of shares—will commence on 7 January 1991. Sections 108 to 112—company's capacity; ultra vires—and paragraph 11 of schedule 19—protection of company's members against unfair prejudice—will commence on 4 February 1991.

  I have placed a copy of the order in the Library.

  Deregulation Initiative
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the deregulation initiative.

  Mr. Redwood
  The deregulation initiative serves as a means of ensuring scrutiny of new and existing regulation and the proper assessment of compliance costs for business. Its next phase which I am announcing today focuses on a number of key areas, including some where Government Departments will be targeting attention on certain outdated or burdensome requirements which business has identified as causing difficulty.

  In addition the specialist deregulation unit in my Department will support the initiative as a whole by taking the lead on certain general issues, and by continuing to work with business to identify regulatory burdens and to co-operate with departments to achieve good deregulatory outcomes on particular issues.

  The new programme of work includes action in the following areas: continuing development and evaluation of disciplines and techniques for counting compliance costs to business and securing good regulatory practice across Whitehall—deregulation unit, DTI; promotion of good regulatory practice in the European Community—deregulation unit, DTI; the administration of rules affecting the workplace, employment conditions, PAYE, national insurance; new integrated guidance for employers and individuals involved in flexible forms of work—Department of Employment; new integrated guidance for the establishment of workplace creches—Department of Employment; review of requirements for annual renewal of exemption certificates for certain NI contributors—
  100
  Department of Social Security; review scope for eliminating some of the differences in definitions of earnings and expenses for PAYE and NIC purposes—Department of Social Security and Inland Revenue.

  The regime for smaller businesses: reduction in reporting requirements for small company accounts—Department of Trade and Industry; examination of scope for new forms of incorporation—Department of Trade and Industry.

  The small investor: simplification of requirements for prospectuses—Department of Trade and Industry.

  VAT compliance: review of VAT retail schemes with a view to simplifying requirements on business—Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Planning: review of procedures for designating simplified planning zones—Department of the Environment.

  Data Protection: reduce the burden of data protection legislation—Home Office.

  Specific controls affecting certain types of business: review of selected business licensing requirements—deregulation unit, DTI; review evening opening of betting offices—Home Office; continue to seek ways of simplifying the operation of the Financial Services Act—Department of Trade and Industry; review scope for streamlining the onshore petroleum licensing scheme—Department of Energy; review the system of consents and licenses to work in tidal waters and designated areas of the continental shelf with a view to rationalisation—Department of Transport; develop new safety controls on food producers and retailers in ways which minimise burdens on business—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Department of Health; exempt vehicles from national type approval requirements to permit use on public roads for testing and publicity purposes—Department of Transport; delegate to classification societies the approval of stability information for drilling units and ships which are mobile offshore support units—Department of Transport.

  International trade and exports: improve immigration procedures at London airports to facilitate international business travel—Home Office; further streamline export licensing procedures—Department of Trade and Industry; review procedures for issuing E101 certificates for people working abroad—Department of Social Security.

  Exports (Iraq)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what letters there are on the Iraqi contract, now known to be for a gun, between his Department and Sheffield Forgemasters; and if he will list the dates of them.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 11 December 1990]: There are two letters to my Department from Forgemasters Engineering dated 18 July 1988 and 2 August 1989, and two letters from my Department to Forgemasters Engineering dated 27 July 1988 and 3 November 1989.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance was provided by his Department to British companies seeking to supply machine tools and propellants to Iraq in the late 1980s.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: My Department provides assistance to exporters in many ways and Iraq was no different from any other market in this

  101
  respect. Assistance from my Department does not, however, relieve exporters of the obligation to comply with export licensing requirements.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice was given by his Department to exporters of sensitive material to Iraq in the late 1980s.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: Guidelines on sensitive exports to Iraq were published in October 1985.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Latin America and Asia
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was his Department's response to COM (90) 176 "Guidelines for Co-operation with the Developing Countries in Latin America and Asia".

  Mrs. Chalker
  We warmly welcome the emphasis in the Asia/Latin America guidelines on help for the poorest countries; on measures for the protection of the environment, including tropical forests; on support for the fight against drugs; and on human rights. The guidelines have been discussed at length—including in two Development Councils—since they were first produced in June 1990. Decisions on the financial package are likely to be taken shortly.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the financial value of development aid from the EC member countries to the Latin America and Asia developing countries (i) in total, (ii) direct financial aid, (iii) technical co-operation and (iv) food aid from 1979 to 1989.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Total net overseas development assistance to the developing countries of Asia and Latin America through the EC for the years 1979 to 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, is as follows:

  £ million

  1979

  79·67

  1980

  83·72

  1981

  161·89

  1982

  124·96

  1983

  130·82

  1984

  188·77

  1985

  133·91

  1986

  156·67

  1987

  176·62

  1988

  233·78

  The United Kingdom share of this assistance was approximately 20 per cent.

  The further breakdown requested by the hon. Member is not published by the European Commission.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18 December.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties 102
  in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

  Sea Birds
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to protect the feeding grounds of breeding sea birds in United Kingdom waters under European Economic Community directive 79/49 on the conservation of wild birds; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's scientific adviser, the Nature Conservancy Council, is in the process of identifying the most important sea bird and gathering grounds in United Kingdom waters. It has published survey results for the North sea and the west of Britain. The final phase, now under way, will cover the English channel and south-west approaches. The Department of the Environment will consider the most appropriate measures to safeguard these areas when the NCC has completed its studies and has advised the Department accordingly.

  Military Hospitals
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his reply, 10 December,Official Report, column 261, he will publish the number of beds, or bed spaces, at each of the military hospitals referred to.

  The Prime Minister
  These hospitals are equipped, manned and financed by the United States Government, to whom all inquiries should be directed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the immigration department has reversed its original decision to refuse entry following representations since the new system commenced; and what percentage of total cases where representations are made this represents.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Voters
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the total number of overseas voters registered for proxy votes as at the latest available date for the United Kingdom and for each constituency within the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of 1,237 overseas electors are included in the current electoral register, which remains in force until 15 February 1991. A breakdown of this figure by parliamentary constituency is not available. Lists of overseas electors who will be included in the 1991–92 register were published by individual electoral registration officers on 28 November. We shall make the figures known to the House in due course.

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons he has visited in England and Wales since his appointment.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have visited Her Majesty's prisons Gloucester and Wandsworth, and Her Majesty's prison and young offender institution Glen Parva. I shall be visiting a young offender institution later this week and have further visits to prison service establishments planned in the new year.

  Income Tax Non-payment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners served a sentence in prison as a result of refusal to pay all or part of their income tax in each year from 1980 onwards.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is no longer recorded centrally. Figures for persons received into prison service custody in the years 1980 to 1987 following committal for non-payment of income tax were published in table 6.3 of "Prison statistics England and Wales 1987"—Cm. 547—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Durham Prison
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the capacity and the numbers of inmates in Durham prison on 26 November and 18 December.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On both dates, the certified normal accommodation and operational capacity of Her Majesty's prison Durham were 651 and 951 respectively. On 26 November, 949 inmates were held. On Monday 17 December, the latest date for which figures are available, 931 inmates were held.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the daily cost of maintaining a prisoner in Durham prison in December 1990.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures for December 1990 are not yet readily available. A full range of operating cost figures for 1989–90 have been published in appendix 6 of the "Report on the work of the Prison Department April 1989—March 1990"—Cm. 302—a copy of which is available in the Library. These indicate that the daily cost of maintaining a prisoner in Durham prison during that period was £37·14 per day.

  Forgery and Counterfeiting
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been brought under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 in each year; how many cases were successfully prosecuted each year; and how many of such cases were based on the contents of directors' reports and company returns.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information on the number of prosecutions and convictions is given in the table. We cannot identify from the information held centrally the number of cases which were based on the contents of directors' reports and company returns.
  104

  Number of defendants prosecuted and convicted under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 19811 2

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1981

  262

  245

  1982

  2,429

  2,424

  1983

  2,791

  2,864

  1984

  3,482

  3,252

  1985

  3,943

  3,817

  1986

  3,254

  3,095

  1987

  3,109

  2,907

  1988

  3,039

  2,660

  1989

  2,730

  2,428

  1 Data also include prosecutions under the Mental Health Act 1983 s126 (1) and (2), and Post Office (Protection) Act 1984 s11 (in part).

  2 The Act came into force on 28 October 1981.

  Prison Costs
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average weekly cost to public funds of keeping someone in prison; whether there are major divergences for particular types of prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The average weekly operating cost per inmate during 1989–90 was £321. The average cost varied from £218—adult open prisons—to £554—dispersal prisons. Full details of these costs are contained in the 1989–90 report on the work of the prison service, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 December,Official Report, column 251, if he will list the courts comprising the 89 per cent. of justices' clerks from whom responses have been received relating to the number of poll tax liability orders; if he will list the number of orders granted, by the end of September at each of those courts; when the returns are expected from the other 11 per cent. of clerks; and if he will provide a similar overall analysis of liability orders monthly or quarterly, and place such returns in the Library.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is set out in the table, which reflects information provided by justices' clerks since the reply given on 10 December. Returns for the period up to 30 September are expected to be complete by the end of December. Further information is being requested on a quarterly basis and I shall arrange for a copy of complete returns to be placed in the Library as soon as they become available.

  Community Charge Enforcement:

  Number of people against whom liability orders made as at 30 September 19901

  Number

  1012 Bath

  0

  1013 Bristol

  0

  1019 Weston-Super-Mare

  0

  1020 Avon North

  0

  1051 North Bedfordshire

  182

  1055 Luton

  1,621

  1066 Forest

  75

  1072 Slough

  0

  1075 West Berkshire

  4,895

  1076 Reading and Sonning

  2,006

  1114 Burnham

  177

  1124 Milton Keynes

  0

  105

  Number

  1125 Aylesbury

  2,966

  1127 Wycombe

  872

  1162 Peterborough

  7,800

  1165 Cambridge

  6,102

  1173 Chester

  749

  1178 Macclesfield

  5,384

  1180 Warrington

  6,911

  1247 Hartlepool

  0

  1248 Blangbaurgh East

  0

  1249 Teesside

  85

  1272 Penwith

  0

  1279 Bodmin

  55

  1280 South East Cornwall

  18

  1282 Truro and South Powd

  51

  1364 Carlisle

  6,125

  1375 Whitehaven

  4,075

  1380 Barrow with Bootle

  544

  1382 Kendal and Londsdale

  719

  1385 Norwich

  0

  1391 Great Yarmouth

  1,855

  1392 Kings Lynn

  656

  1396 Thetford

  0

  1418 Chesterfield

  0

  1422 High Peak

  0

  1423 Ilkeston

  0

  1427 Derby and South Derbyshire

  0

  1476 Barnstable

  0

  1479 Exeter

  0

  1484 Plymouth

  236

  1487 Tavistock

  0

  1490 Torbay

  54

  1501 Bournemouth

  7,105

  1505 Poole

  4,519

  1510 Weymouth and Portland

  500

  1577 Darlington

  0

  1578 Derwentside

  0

  1579 Durham

  0

  1580 Easington

  22

  1581 Sedgefield

  0

  1582 Teesdale and Wear Valley

  0

  1597 Brighton

  0

  1599 Eastbourne

  756

  1601 Hastings

  3,065

  1602 Hove

  1,974

  1603 Lewes

  0

  1610 Billericay

  0

  1612 Chelmsford

  867

  1613 Colchester

  2,926

  1619 Harlow

  0

  1623 Saffron Walden

  0

  1624 Southend-on-sea

  6

  1672 Cheltenham

  849

  1689 Cirencester, Fairfield, Tetby

  0

  1692 Gloucester

  0

  1693 South Gloucestershire

  0

  1731 Bolton

  1,737

  1732 Bury

  1,714

  1733 Manchester

  0

  1734 Oldham

  89

  1735 Middleton and Heywood

  0

  1736 Rochdale

  0

  1737 Eccles

  298

  1738 Salford

  322

  1739 Stockport

  0

  1740 Ashton-under-Lyne

  98

  1742 Trafford

  609

  1743 Leigh

  0

  1745 Wigan

  0

  1762 Basingstoke

  5,564

  1765 Fareham

  3,786

  1769 Lymington

  5,596

  1770 Odiham

  4,310

  1772 Portsmouth

  0

  1775 Southampton

  76

  1837 Havering PSA

  10

  1851 City of Hereford

  315

  1860 Redditch

  3,114

  1874 City of Worcester

  958

  106

  Number

  1878 Dacorum

  2,754

  1883 St. Albans

  2,115

  1885 Stevenage

  2,643

  1886 Watford

  1,225

  1888 Hertford and Ware

  4,619

  1923 Bainton Beacon

  263

  1933 Kingston upon Hull

  119

  1936 Scunthorpe

  0

  1938 South Hunsley Beacon

  0

  1940 Grimsby and Cleethorpes

  500

  1945 Isle of Wight

  1,646

  1952 Ashford and Tenterden

  76

  1953 Canterbury and St. Augustin

  0

  1957 Folkestone and Hythe

  125

  1959 Maidstone

  7

  1961 Medway

  2,017

  1962 Ramsgate

  0

  1966 Tunbridge Wells and Cranbrook

  2,583

  1995 Blackburn

  0

  1996 Blackpool

  9,952

  1997 Burnley

  274

  1998 Chorley

  262

  2002 Lancaster

  9,015

  2003 Ormskirk

  0

  2004 Pendle

  137

  2005 Preston

  210

  2006 Rossendale

  1,126

  2009 Wyre

  8,457

  2039 Leicester (City)

  2,712

  2040 Leicester (County)

  0

  2041 Loughborough

  0

  2043 Market Bosworth

  522

  2059 Grantham

  4,055

  2061 Lincoln (City)

  3,151

  2065 Market Rasen

  0

  2071 Spilsby and Skegness

  1,672

  2266 Knowsley

  6,240

  2267 Liverpool

  0

  2268 St. Helens

  0

  2269 North Sefton

  2,511

  2270 South Sefton

  1,816

  2271 Wirral

  0

  2325 Northampton

  9,837

  2338 Blyth Valley

  3,390

  2346 Tynedale

  1,772

  2348 Berwick-upon-Tweed

  859

  2522 Allertonshire

  0

  2525 Bulmer East

  6,902

  2527 Claro

  0

  2536 Scarborough

  5,338

  2538 Staincliffe

  0

  2554 York

  0

  2566 Mansfield

  0

  2568 Nottingham

  6,952

  2631 Guildhall Justice room

  0

  2641 Bow street

  0

  2642 Clerkenwell

  0

  2643 Greenwich

  0

  2644 Marlborough street

  0

  2646 Marylebone

  0

  2648 Old street

  0

  2649 South Western

  1,129

  2650 Thames

  3,070

  2651 Tower Bridge

  0

  2652 West London (Southcombe street)

  0

  2653 Woolwich

  0

  2655 Wells street

  0

  2656 Camberwell Green

  0

  2657 West London (Walton street)

  0

  2660 Horseferry road

  0

  2663 Highbury Corner

  0

  2678 Oxford

  0

  2681 Abingdon

  303

  2702 North Oxfordshire etc.

  0

  2706 Sedgemoor

  0

  2709 Taunton Deane

  211

  2713 Yeovil

  116

  2717 East Oxfordshire

  235

  107

  Number

  2721 Stratford

  11

  2725 Barnet

  83

  2727 Bromley PSA

  4,890

  2728 Bexley

  0

  2732 Croydon

  12,660

  2733 Sutton PSA

  6,584

  2734 Ealing

  0

  2740 Hampstead

  1,022

  2742 Haringey PSA

  0

  2757 Enfield PSA

  3,764

  2760 Harrow Gore PSA

  0

  2762 Brent PSA

  0

  2763 Merton PSA

  247

  2766 Hillingdon PSA

  0

  2768 Richmond upon Thames PSA

  0

  2769 Feltham

  25

  2770 Barnsley

  0

  2771 Doncaster

  0

  2772 Rotherham

  0

  2773 Sheffield

  3,965

  2781 Cannock

  0

  2785 Lichfield

  470

  2786 Newcastle-under-Lyme

  2,133

  2790 Stafford

  0

  2791 Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  2812 Kingston-upon-Thames

  6,261

  2813 Waltham Forest PSA

  0

  2814 Barking

  0

  2815 Redbridge PSA

  477

  2822 Lowestoft

  897

  2830 Ipswich

  887

  2832 St. Edmundsbury

  4,037

  2836 Dorking

  1,011

  2839 Farnham

  2,806

  2841 Guildford

  0

  2842 Reigate

  389

  2843 Staines and Sunbury

  6,262

  2844 Woking

  0

  2850 Gateshead

  15,738

  2851 Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  2852 North Tyneside

  0

  2853 South Tyneside

  5,229

  2854 Houghton-le-Spring

  0

  2855 Sunderland

  5,991

  2896 Nuneaton

  246

  2903 Mid-Warwickshire

  0

  2908 Birmingham

  204

  2909 Sutton Coldfield

  2,024

  2910 Coventry

  13,675

  2911 Dudley

  2,620

  2913 Stourbridge

  1,353

  2914 Warley

  587

  2915 West Bromwich

  488

  2916 Solihull

  6,098

  2918 Walsall

  3,630

  2919 Wolverhampton

  0

  2932 Mid-Sussex

  11

  2935 Worthing

  0

  2936 Chichester and District

  0

  2978 Bradford M.D.

  0

  2979 Keighley

  0

  2984 Calder

  0

  2987 Huddersfield

  3,633

  2988 Leeds

  0

  2991 Skyrack and Wetherby

  0

  2995 Wakefield

  194

  2996 Batley and Dewsbury

  0

  3007 Chippenham

  3,009

  3014 Salisbury

  1,563

  3015 Swindon

  0

  3017 Trowbridge

  180

  3055 Hawarden

  0

  3057 Rhuddlan

  0

  3058 Wrexham Maelor

  0

  3122 Llanelli

  159

  3135 Gogledd Ceredigion

  1,089

  3138 Carmarthen South

  1,296

  3139 Cleddau

  0

  108

  Number

  3201 Bedwellty

  0

  3202 Cwmbran

  504

  3205 Newport

  337

  3220 Ardudwy-Is-Artro

  0

  3224 Conwy and Llandudno

  224

  3229 North Anglesey

  0

  3230 Penllyn

  0

  3234 Caernarfon and Gwyrfai

  0

  3263 Lower Rhymney Valley

  131

  3264 Merthyr Tydfil

  0

  3265 Miskin

  4,061

  3266 Newcastle and Ogmore

  0

  3275 Drayton

  55

  3279 Shrewsbury

  39

  3282 Telford

  0

  3342 Brecon

  0

  3347 Newtown

  0

  3348 Cardiff

  978

  3349 Vale of Glamorgan

  2,825

  3357 Port Talbot

  198

  3358 Lliw Valley

  1,309

  3359 Neath

  242

  3360 Swansea City

  2,107

  6635 ILOC (Tower Hamlets etc.)

  0

  TOTAL

  359,224

  1 Courts listed in alphabetical order within commission areas listed in alphabetical order.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas domestic workers have been deported from the United Kingdom each year since 1980 as a result of leaving the employ of visitors with whom they were originally admitted.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not separately identified and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long a domestic worker must have been in the employ of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom to be admitted as a visitor together with their employer; and what checks are carried out in the employer's country of origin.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Under current arrangements there is no minimum qualifying period. Under the new arrangements announced by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ferrers in another place on 24 July at columns 1449–50, which are to take effect shortly, a domestic worker must have been in continuous paid employment with the employer abroad for at least 12 months before accompanying or joining a visitor here. Entry clearance will be required in all cases so that the bona fides of the arrangement can be checked before the domestic worker sets out for the United Kingdom.

  Channel 3
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the balance between the number of large and the number of small independent Channel 3 television companies; what proposals he has regarding the ownership of contiguous franchises; what consultations have taken place recently with the interests involved; when such consultations were initiated; and when they are expected to be concluded.
  109
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department announced proposals for the content of the supplementary ownership rules to be made under powers in the Broadcasting Act 1990 in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 4 December at columns 85–87. The draft order, which is subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament, will be laid as soon as possible.

  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policy he announced during the 1989–90 Session of Parliament during proceedings on the Broadcasting Bill in respect of the ownership of contiguous Channel 3 franchises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Ministers indicated during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill that they envisaged that no one person should be allowed to own two large Channel 3 franchises, or two franchises for contiguous areas, except in circumstances where one area had become non-viable and only the adjacent licensee was prepared to take over the area in question. But this was in the context of the underlying policy objectives that the separate regional identities of individual Channel 3 licence areas should be preserved, and that regional programming obligations should be fully discharged. In the light of the strengthening of the regional requirements in the Bill, and of our decision to designate nine of the 15 licence areas as "large" for these purposes, we concluded that it was no longer necessary to provide for an additional restriction on ownership to contiguous licences.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been spent by his Department on public safety campaigns encouraging the use of domestic smoke alarms in each of the last five years; how much money is budgeted for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Home Office first carried out publicity specifically related to smoke alarms in the financial year 1987–88. A breakdown of expenditure for that year and all subsequent years is given in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Advertising

  Other publicity (including print)

  Total

  1987–88

  0·50

  0·041

  0·541

  1988–89

  0·55

  0·115

  0·665

  1989–90

  1·00

  0·091

  1·091

  11990–91

  1·05

  0·109

  1·159

  1 Estimated.

  In 1987, before the Home Office carried out any publicity, research indicated that ownership of domestic smoke alarms in England and Wales was at 6 per cent. Following the national advertising carried out in January 1990, research indicated that ownership had increased to 35 per cent. The Home Office has a target of increasing ownership to 70 per cent. by 1994.

  Prison Places
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places are currently provided in Her Majesty's prisons; and what is the total prison population at the latest convenient date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The uncrowded capacity of the prison estate in England and Wales on Friday 14 December 1990 was 44,346, but this figure includes accommodation temporarily taken out of use for refurbishment. The prison population on the same date was 44,911, including 674 prisoners held in police cells.

  Trevi Group
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the meetings of Trevi and European Community Immigration Ministers in Rome on 6 and 7 December.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The meeting of Trevi Ministers endorsed the good progress made under the Italian presidency in developing further measures to strengthen practical police co-operation, in particular as regards work towards the creation of a European drugs intelligence unit, work on the establishment of a European police information system to help combat the most serious forms of crime, and an initiative to provide joint training to police officers from drug producer and transit countries which has already resulted in a three-week pilot course. We also agreed in principle to the establishment of a permanent secretariat for Trevi, and asked for detailed work on this to be carried out during the Luxembourg presidency.

  The meeting of Ministers concerned with immigration was the ninth in the series of meetings held towards the end of each presidency since 1986 and the first which I have myself attended. Ministers had before them a report from senior officials which set out the work undertaken during the Italian presidency.

  In particular, we welcomed the progress that had been made on the draft convention on the crossing of the external borders of the member states of the Community and invited the ad hoc group on immigration to complete consideration of the remaining issues. We also invited the ad hoc group to consider what measures are necessary to implement article 8A of the treaty of Rome as regards frontiers. Both my predecessor and I have continued to make clear during the Italian presidency the United Kingdom's profound reservation as to the complete abolition of immigration controls at internal Community borders. We shall, however, participate actively in the study of measures for the implementation of article 8A.

  Ministers also discussed the question of migration from central and eastern Europe in readiness for the Council of Europe ministerial conference to be held in Vienna in January 1991.

  Prisoners (Underpants)
  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many changes of underpants male prisoners are given each week; and whether there are any plans to increase this.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Current issue scales allow for a minimum of two changes of underpants each week.
  111
  Following a review of the range and style of prison clothing, this is being increased to a minimum of four changes a week through a phased programme between January and the end of 1991. The first inmates to benefit will be those in establishments in Kent and the north-east.

  Human Rights (European Bodies)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Her Majesty's Government intend to renew their acceptance of the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights and of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have decided to renew for a period of five years from 14 January 1991 our acceptance of the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights and of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

  Suicide Prevention
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has given consideration to the development programmes involving voluntary organisations such as the Samaritans in suicide prevention schemes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has grant-aided the Samaritans for several years. The grant in the current year is £155,000; we therefore know and support their valuable work in assisting those considering suicide.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received urging him to exempt from value added tax the provision of home care goods and services.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government have received a number of representations on this matter, but, owing to the constraints of EC VAT law, are unable to exempt domiciliary care unless it is provided by a charity or public body.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek to make special arrangements for those returning United Kingdom hostages and refugees from Kuwait and Iraq whose expected entitlement to income tax exemptions has been lost because they have been obliged to return to the United Kingdom early.

  Mr. Maude
  I am considering this matter carefully in the light of information about the particular circumstances of those affected by the Gulf crisis.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings his Department would make were no notice given of oral questions to Ministers and they were answered without civil service time being used on briefings.
  112
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No savings would be made and costs would almost certainly increase significantly. If the oral question is known in advance briefing can be tightly focused, thus avoiding the cost of producing a detailed brief, covering all subjects that could possibly arise.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average length of time taken and the average cost involved of officials' time in his Department preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The time taken in preparing ministerial briefs for oral parliamentary questions is not routinely recorded in Her Majesty's Treasury. Estimates are, however, made where there is a likelihood of exceeding the disproportionate cost threshold (currently £250). However, following an interdepartmental exercise in 1972 in which the Treasury participated an assessment was made of the average cost throughout all Departments of answering an oral question. This assessment was based on staff time, using average rates of pay and associated costs for the grades concerned, together with a share of the cost of parliamentary sections and any substantial non-staff costs such as computer usage. This assessed figure is regularly updated and currently stands at £99.

  London Weighting
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) for what reasons London weighting for civil servants has not been altered for the last two years;

  (2) whether he intends to increase London weighting for civil servants;

  (3) whether the civil servants' claim for additional London weighting will be submitted for independent arbitration;

  (4) whether it is his intention to end London weighting payments to civil servants.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government's general policy is that pay should be based on what is required to recruit, retain and motivate within what is affordable. Over the past two years, over £87 million has been spent enhancing London pay, in addition to national pay increases. This represents an increase of over 50 per cent. in the London element of the pay bill. The money has been spent on special London pay points for most civil servants in the capital and on local pay additions which focus on particular locations experiencing recruitment and retention difficulties. Unlike London weighting, both are targeted to ensure that public money is used most cost-effectively. Over the past two years, recruitment and retention rates in London have improved very significantly.

  Against this background, there was no justification for an additional across-the-board increase in London weighting in either 1989 or 1990. The Government's intention is to continue the policy of setting London pay in accordance with what is required to recruit, retain and motivate and, where appropriate, to target increases in the London element of pay to ensure that they produce the best value for money for the taxpayer. There are no plans to end London weighting.

  I have agreed to meet the Council of Civil Service Unions in the new year to discuss its request for arbitration on its 1990 London weighting claim.

  House Owners (Relief)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show(a) the quantities of relief during 1989–90 that was accounted for by house owners who in that year did not either move or enter the tenure and (b) the quantum of relief provided to 1989–90 first-time purchasers during that year.

  Mr. Maude
  This information is not available.

  National Savings
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any proposals to make about the method of calculating repayments of National Savings products.

  Mr. Maples
  National Savings practice is to date repayments at the expected date of receipt by customers. This has also been the date used for valuing the amounts to be repaid or for other rights, such as participation in premium bond prize draws. In this way customers benefit from their savings until the date they are expected to receive their money.

  National Savings has now received new legal advice on the regulations governing savings certificates, premium bonds and the National Savings bank ordinary account. This is that repayments should be determined at the date of posting, not the date of receipt.

  For premium bonds, National Savings has therefore changed its administrative practice to fit with the regulations without any disadvantage to customers.

  For savings certificates and ordinary account, if National Savings had valued the repayment warrants at the date they were posted rather than the expected date of receipt, many customers would have been deprived of their final increments, bonuses and other benefits. These additional payments for savings certificates are estimated at £300 million—this is not a precise figure as over 70 years of transactions are involved. National Savings will not be seeking to recover any of the payments made to customers as the amounts paid to them were in accordance with long-standing practice and customers' expectations.

  The Government intend to seek parliamentary authority in the next Finance Bill to validate the payments that have been made out of the national loans fund, the Consolidated Fund and the National Savings bank ordinary deposits. Meanwhile payments in accordance with current practice—which is to the benefit of savers—will continue to be made pending the necessary provisions in the Finance Bill.

  For the future, National Savings intends to continue the practice which has meant that customers receive payment as near as possible to the date they expect it. National Savings is considering with its legal advisers what consequential changes should be made to the relevant regulations. Amending regulations will be laid as soon as practicable.

  A small number of past customers have legal entitlements to additional payments. First, some customers who had their index-linked certificates repaid at a time that was affected by a fall in the RPI would have received a larger payment, averaging £1·50, if the certificates had been valued at the date of posting. National Savings is sending the extra payments with interest to compensate for delay to all the holders concerned.
  114
  Secondly, some premium bond holders become entitled to an increased prize, or a new prize. This is because under the new legal interpretation of the regulations, some winning bonds were ineligible for inclusion in the relevant prize draws as they should have been treated as having been repaid earlier. National Savings is writing to all new premium bond prize winners. They will be paid their prizes plus compensation for the delay.

  The additional amount now to be paid out in premium bond prizes and to holders of index-linked certificates, together with compensation for these late payments, is estimated at £300,000. This will not add to planned public expenditure. National Savings is issuing a press release today giving further details of its current practice and of the consequences of the new legal advice. I have placed copies in the Library.

  Third-world Countries
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in pursuing, with other members of the Paris Club, the proposals made by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer on 19 September to improve concessions made to third-world countries and the Toronto terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: The United Kingdom's Trinidad proposals are currently being discussed by the members of the Paris Club as part of a general review of the treatment of the poorest, highly indebted countries. Naturally, other creditors have ideas of their own, many of which would be complementary to the United Kingdom proposals. It is too early to say what the result of the review will be. However, we remain confident that a new package incorporating many of the important features of the Trinidad terms will be agreed during 1991.

  Poland
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current economic balance between the United Kingdom and Poland; and if he has any proposals to alleviate the burden of debt upon Poland.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: United Kingdom exports to Poland in 1990 H1 were $142 million. United Kingdom imports from Poland during 1990 H1 were $310 million. The Paris Club of official bilateral creditors is currently working with the Polish authorities in order to find a long-term solution to the Polish debt problem. United Kingdom officials are taking an active and constructive role in these discussions.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for discontinuation of the leasing by borough or district councils of private houses for temporary accommodation for homeless persons; what consultation he has had with boroughs principally affected; and what study he has made concerning the effects of implementing his proposal.

  Mr. Yeo
  On 22 October 1990, the Department consulted all local housing authorities about proposals for
  115
  housing revenue account subsidy in 1991–92. There was no proposal to discontinue leasing. We are now considering the responses received as a result of our consultations and final decisions will be made shortly.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for action in relation to homeless single people in London, additional to that announced in his reply of 22 June,Official Report, column 752.

  Sir George Young
  [pursuant to the reply, 26 November 1990, c. 256–57]: I am announcing today that I have given the go-ahead for 1,000 new bedspaces in hostel and long-term accommodation under the single homelessness initiative to tackle rough sleeping in central London. The new hostel spaces will be run by front-line voluntary groups.

  We are working on this high priority task in close co-operation with voluntary organisations. I am delighted that Nick Hardwick, director of Centrepoint, Soho, is to be working closely on this project with me. Together we will be developing strategies to ensure particularly that people sleeping in concentrations such as those in London's Bullring and Victoria will make use of the hostels that are available to them.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department had, before announcing proposals to reduce the 100 per cent. subsidy for leasing housing from private landlords, on the likely increase in the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in(a) London and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is for local authorities to decide what type of temporary accommodation to use to meet their homelessness duties. Local authorities report to my Department on a quarterly basis the number of homeless households they have placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. As there is considerable variation between areas in the use made of such accommodation, my Department does not make forecasts of likely future usage.

  National Parks (Fencing)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any intention to amend planning regulations to restrict high fencing in national park areas.

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

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the restrictions on the natural movements of deer in the area of Bury hill, near Dulverton, caused by the erection of a high deer-proof fence; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the fence in question has been erected on one boundary of Barlynch wood under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. I understand that it does not prevent access by other routes. I do not propose to intervene.

  Office of Water Services
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of staff employed by the Office of Water Services; what are their terms of reference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Water Act 1989 established the Office of Water Services as an independent Government Department under the Director General of Water Services, who was appointed by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales. Its main tasks are to enforce the new system of economic regulation of the industry and to protect the interests of customers. Its organisation and staffing are matters for the director general. An account of its initial period of operation was given in the director general's annual report which was laid before the House on 19 June and a copy of which is in the Library.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to approve derelict land grant for the purposes of desilting Lymm dam in Cheshire.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. The dam in its present state is attractive, open to public access and provides a natural habitat. Desilting it cannot be regarded as high in regional priorities.

  Water Companies (Charging)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 12 December, if he will set out the statutory requirements there are on water companies to take cognisance of the outcome of the consultation currently being undertaken by the Director General of Water Services on methods of charging.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Water Act 1989 contains a prohibition on charging by rateable values which will not take effect until the year 2000. Otherwise it is for each company to decide what method to adopt, subject to the obligations placed on it in its instrument of appointment, in particular the avoidance of undue discrimination against and undue preference for any class of customers or potential customers. I understand that the Director General of Water Services hopes to produce from the consultation process which he has initiated some guidelines and criteria which will help the water companies to formulate their future charging policies.

  Integrated Pollution Control
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he is making to ensure proper liaison between the various regulatory bodies involved in the control of those processes covered by integrated pollution control.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the division of responsibility between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority for the sampling of industrial discharges has been settled without diminution of the National Rivers Authority's legislative rights; and if he will make a statement.
  117
  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has recently signed two memoranda of understanding, one with the Health and Safety Executive and the other with the National Rivers Authority.

  These memoranda are designed to ensure effective co-ordination of the regulation of plant subject to control under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The memorandum with the Health and Safety Executive is concerned with the interface between the two organisations in respect of discharges, primarily those to air, and issues arising from the protection of persons at work and the public under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The memorandum with the National Rivers Authority deals with issues relating to discharges to water.

  Copies of both memoranda have been placed in the Library of the House.

  River Severn (Sewage Treatment)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by water authority, the sewage treatment works which are allowed by derogation, to discharge raw sewage or partly treated sewage in the River Severn and its tributaries.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: Effluent discharges from sewage treatment works operated by the water service companies are subject to control by the National Rivers Authority under the provisions of the Water Act 1989. There are no derogations from these controls. Particulars of consents granted for discharges into the River Severn, its tributaries and the Severn estuary are entered on the public registers which are available for inspection at the relevant regional offices of the National Rivers Authority.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant he has approved in connection with the improvement of permanent traveller caravan sites in Bradford; and how many additional pitches are to be provided under the improvement plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: Phase I improvements for the Mary street site in Bradford were given approval in February 1988 in the sum of £183,449. The works were to improve the existing site and to provide eight new pitches. They have now been completed.

  Phase II and III improvements to the same site were approved in October 1990 in the sum of £643,506. These works will produce further site improvements and an additional four new pitches, bringing the total pitches on this site to 28.

  I understand that Bradford city council will also shortly be submitting an application for improvements to the Esholt lane site at Baildon.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances he can withdraw designation agreed under the caravans Act; in what circumstances a local authority granted designation can request him to withdraw or rescind designation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [ holding answer 17 December 1990]: The Secretary of State may designate a local authority under
  118
  the Caravan Sites Act 1968 when he considers that adequate sites for gipsies are provided in its area, or that it is not necessary or expedient to make such provision. He may revoke the designation order, by further order, either on the formal application of the authority which made the original application, or without such an application.

  It is open to anybody to seek to persuade the Secretary of State that the circumstances in which the designation order was made are no longer applicable, and that the order should thus be revoked.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information has been supplied to his Department about the extent of permanent caravan site provision for travellers established or planned by each local authority in Yorkshire and Humberside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: From the information supplied annually to my Department by local authorities, the extent of permanent caravan site provision for travellers by local authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside is as follows:

  Authority and site

  Number of pitches

  Humberside

  Beverley (Harland Way, Cottingham)

  26

  Kingston-upon-Hull (Bedford Street, Wilmington)

  24

  North Yorkshire

  Richmondshire (Limekiln Wood, Catterick)

  14

  Ryedale (Clifton)

  20

  Ryedale (Malton)

  14

  Ryedale (Osbaldwick)

  12

  Selby (Burn)

  12

  Selby (Carlton)

  12

  Hambleton (Seamer)

  16

  Former County of South Yorkshire

  Barnsley (Smithies Lane)

  20

  Doncaster (Armthorpe)

  20

  Doncaster (Black Bank, Doncaster Carr)

  1 246

  Doncaster (Nursery Lane, Sprotbrough)

  114

  Rotherham (North Anston)

  16

  Sheffield (Broad Oaks)

  112

  Sheffield (Holbrook Industrial Estate)

  115

  Sheffield (Redmires)

  16

  Sheffield (Tinsley Park Road)

  110

  Former County of West Yorkshire

  Bradford (Birkshall Lane/Bowling Back Lane)

  24

  Bradford (Esholt Lane, Baildon)

  16

  Leeds (Cottingley Springs 'A')

  20

  Leeds (Cottingley Springs 'B')

  36

  Wakefield (Heath Caravan Park, Doncaster Road)

  329

  1 Indicates temporary site.

  2 6 transit.

  3 22 transit.

  The following authorities also have schemes for refurbishment of existing sites or the development of new sites at some stage of the grant application process:

  City of Bradford Metropolitan Council

  Humberside County Council

  North Yorkshire County Council

  City of Sheffield Metropolitan District Council

  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  In addition, officers of the Department have had discussions with the following authorities where further gipsy site proposals are at an early stage:

  Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council

  119

  Leeds City Council

  City of Sheffield Metropolitan Council

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with representatives of organisations concerning the designation of Bradford under the caravans Act; what discussions he intends holding to discuss this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: Bradford metropolitan district was designated under section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, with effect from 30 May 1990. I have not held discussions subsequently with any organisations concerning this designation and have no plans to do so.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gold (Iraq and Kuwait)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the amount of gold held by financial institutions in Iraq on 2 August and of the amount which now remains in Kuwait or Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Iraqi economy has been on a war footing for nearly a decade, and very little authoritative information has been disclosed. No useful estimate can therefore be made.

  Financial Assets (Kuwait)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the liquid assets which have been removed from Kuwait since the Iraqi invasion.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Until the illegal occupation of Kuwait is terminated and the legitimate Government restored we have no basis on which to make meaningful estimates.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the value of the Kuwaiti currency currently blocked.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the value of Kuwaiti currency currently blocked by sanctions.

  Entry Clearance Officers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by how many the number of entry clearance officers at the post in Bangladesh has been reduced in the past year, to date; what further plans there are to reduce the number of entry clearance officers; what effect the reductions in staff will have in applicant waiting times; and if lie will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  During 1990 the post at Dhaka has been reduced by five entry clearance officers of whom four were redeployed to other Indian sub-continent posts where queues were longer. Staffing levels are kept under continual review. The staff savings were achieved through increased productivity which had reduced applicant waiting times. These are now expected to remain roughly constant at the following levels:120

  Queue

  Months

  1

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  4

  9

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:

  (Q1) Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases.

  (Q2) All spouses; all children under 18 years.

  (Q3) Fiance(e)s and others applying for first time settlement.

  (Q4) Re-applicants.

  Romanian Orphans
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will issue instructions to the entry clearance section in the British embassy in Bucharest to expedite the documentation required by prospective adoptive parents of Romanian orphans so that their entry clearance certificates may be issued before 19 December.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British embassy in Bucharest processes entry clearance applications relating to the adoption of Romanian children as quickly as possible. There is no scope for expediting the process further. In any case, prospective adopters should not be unduly delayed by the holiday season, since we understand that the Romanian courts will close only on 24 and 25 December and 1 and 2 January.

  Middle East
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east as between Israel and its Arab neighbouring states.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The cycle of violence in Israel and the occupied territories demonstrates how important it is to retain a process which will bring peace between Israel and her neighbours, including the Palestinians. This is unfinished business to which we shall have to return once the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait has been reversed.

  Rights of the Child Convention
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government propose to ratify the UN convention on the rights of the child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom signed the UN convention on the rights of the child on 19 April 1990. We intend to ratify the convention as soon as possible.

  British Embassy, Bucharest
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will review the decision to close the British embassy in Bucharest from 15 December to 11 January.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There has been no such decision. During the period in question, the British embassy in Bucharest will close only on 24, 25 and 26 December and 1 January, apart from weekends. The visa section is normally closed to the public every Thursday.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what form of application to British posts overseas is made by employers of domestic servants desirous of visiting the United Kingdom together with those servants; and what details they are required to give of their domestic servants.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under present arrangements, unless the domestic servant, who must be aged 16 or over, is a visa national, an application to a British visa-issuing post overseas is not required for a visit to the United Kingdom. Visa nationals are required to obtain the appropriate visa at a British visa-issuing post. In such cases, the domestic servant is required to produce documentary evidence from the employer confirming that the servant is already in the service of the employer abroad, and that adequate support and accommodation will be provided in the United Kingdom.

THE ARTS

  G. B. Shaw Estate
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) what is the total sum that has accrued to the British museum from the G. B. Shaw estate;

  (2) whether he will publish a table showing how much money has accrued to the British museum from the G. B. Shaw estate in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Renton
  These are matters for the trustees of the British museum.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Science and Engineering Research Council
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many individual members of the staff of the Science and Engineering Research Council were given merit awards during the 1989–90 financial year;

  (2) what was the total value of merit awards given to individual members of staff of the Science and Engineering Research Council during 1989–90.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A total of 150 merit awards were made to members of staff of the Science and Engineering Research Council during the financial year 1989–90; the total value of these awards was £41,220.

  Wilmington Grammar School
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to issue his decision on the grant-maintained status application made by the Wilmington grammar school for boys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is still considering his decision. Section 73 (4)(b) of the Education Reform Act requires this proposal and the section 12 proposals published by Kent education authority on 13 June to close this school and the Wilmington high school, and the section 13 proposal published simultaneously by the Rochester Church of England diocesan 122
  board of education to establish a new voluntary aided school in the premises, to be considered together. He will inform the governors, the education authority and the diocese of his decision shortly.

  Support and Training Grants
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what allocations will be made to local education authorities under the grants for education support and training programme for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department is today writing to all local education authorities in England to inform them of the level of expenditure which I have approved for support in the grants for education support and training programme for 1991–92. The programme will support total expenditure of some £364 million in 1991–92. The programme is summarised in the table.

  I am placing in the Library a more detailed table setting out allocations to individual local education authorities in each activity.

  Expenditure to be supported in the 1991–92 GEST programme

  £ million

  School management

  71·9

  Teacher information

  0·8

  Teacher appraisal1

  10·0

  College management

  3·4

  NC assessment

  35·0

  IT in schools

  23·3

  National Curriculum

  85·7

  LEA inspectors/advisers

  1·2

  Teacher recruitment

  7·7

  Licensed teachers

  5·5

  Under 5s

  4·8

  Health education

  7·3

  Pupil behaviour

  1·8

  Training for SEN

  5·5

  SEN in ordinary schools

  1·0

  SEN in FE

  0·9

  PICKUP

  2·1

  IT in FE

  1·1

  National Vocational qualifications

  2·1

  Ethnic diversity in FE

  0·9

  Workers Educational Association

  1·2

  Adult literacy

  0·7

  Youth and community workers

  1·2

  Management of training

  19·9

  Activities being handled separately

  Articled teachers

  8·0

  Educational Psychologists

  2·6

  Committed expenditure

  From ESG projects begun in 1990–91 and earlier years:

  58·0

  TOTAL

  363·6

  1 Indicative allocation, to be confirmed subject to satisfactory bids.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the intake of teacher training courses in England and Wales in 1989–90; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the numbers to provide for the needs of primary and secondary schools and institutions of further education in the years after 1993.
  123
  Mr. Fallon
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 November 1990, c. 152]: My right hon. and learned Friend is today publishing the technical document describing our projections of school teacher demand and supply. A copy has been placed in the Library. It will contribute to a more informed debate about teacher supply by setting out the basis of our projections, and providing a range of projections as illustration. This will assist those who wish to produce their own projections and to form a view about ours. The document also responds to the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee which asked for a clearer statement of the Department's projection methodology.

  Taxi Occupants Killed or Seriously Injured: Great Britain: 1980 to 1989.

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Taxi Occupants:

  Drivers:

  Killed

  8

  2

  3

  5

  5

  3

  1

  8

  4

  5

  Seriously injured

  63

  63

  67

  64

  72

  70

  95

  84

  96

  87

  All KSI

  71

  65

  70

  69

  77

  73

  96

  92

  100

  92

  Passengers:

  Killed

  3

  5

  6

  1

  6

  7

  3

  3

  6

  3

  Seriously injured

  102

  99

  109

  117

  120

  89

  115

  138

  135

  144

  All KSI

  105

  104

  115

  118

  126

  96

  118

  141

  141

  147

  All occupants KSI

  176

  169

  185

  187

  203

  169

  214

  233

  241

  239

  Taxi population1

  —

  —

  —

  23,547

  24,784

  25,383

  26,310

  27,552

  29,181

  30,249

  1 Figures were not collected before 1983.

  Traffic (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will prepare and place in the Library a map showing the principal locations of traffic lock or congestion in London for the year 1989 or other convenient period, indicating for each the principal causes of such conditions.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to my Department's report "Traffic Speeds on London Roads", published in November 1989, which shows speeds on the strategic network in London, and to the reports of stage 1 of the London assessment studies published in December 1986 which identified problems on the road network in the study areas and their causes. I am placing in the Library a map showing the location of congestion on the trunk road network identified by the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the range of passenger car units per hour per lane currently flowing on routes in London likely to be designated as red routes; and the range of respective increase in flow he expects after their designation.

  Mr. Chope
  Traffic flows vary very widely, depending on the characteristics of the road and the time of day. It is therefore not possible to provide meaningful figures in this form. An objective is to encourage traffic to use the priority routes rather than unsuitable residential roads. We shall be monitoring the pilot scheme to observe the effects on traffic flows through the area.

  Clearways (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a map showing the clearways in London on which there are existing parking

TRANSPORT

  Taxi Passengers (Accidents)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what figures he has for the past 10 years of the number of people killed or seriously injured whilst travelling by taxi.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the table. The number of taxis registered is also shown. The only available figures for both accidents and vehicle registrations relate to purpose-built taxis.

  or waiting restrictions originally introduced by the Greater London council in co-operation with London borough councils.

  Mr. Chope
  Clearways in London were introduced by the Minister of Transport in 1961 under the London (Prohibition of Waiting) (Clearways) Order SI No. 1401. There have been a number of subsequent amendments. These specify the locations in great detail and I am investigating whether a convenient summary map can be produced.

  Coach and Rail Services
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any estimates are available of the number of long-distance passengers carried by(a) coach and (b) rail services from 1980 to 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information required is not available in the form requested, but the following data from the national travel survey provide an assessment of comparable journeys greater than 25 miles in length.

  Passenger journeys per year

  (millions)

  Coach

  Rail

  1978–79

  50

  190

  1985–86

  70

  200

  Information from this source for 1989–90 will be available in mid-1992.

  Pedestrians
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the number of pedestrians killed in Great Britain, for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1988, 1989 and 1980.
  125
  Mr. Chope
  Comprehensive information on pedestrian fatalities is not available. However, information is available on those killed in road accidents and is summarised in the table.

  Pedestrian deaths: Great Britain: 1986 to 1989

  Year

  Deaths

  1986

  1,841

  1987

  1,703

  1988

  1,753

  1989

  1,706

  Pedestrian casualty figures for 1990 are not yet available.

  Drivers (Health)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what medical advice is available to him on the health of drivers and motor cycle riders and on those in charge of the various forms of public transport for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Chope
  All drivers are required by law to notify DVLA, Swansea, of any relevant health condition when they apply for a driving licence, or if a condition develops or worsens during the currency of a licence. In addition public service vehicle drivers are required to submit a full medical report on first application for their vocational licence and at five-yearly intervals from age 46.

  Car Phones
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Gloucester on 11 December,Official Report, column 344, what new information he has concerning the safety implications of the use of hand-held car telephones in moving vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  None.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Gloucester on 11 December,Official Report, column 344, what views were expressed at his meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers by the Association of

  Orthopaedic Treatment Centre, Rhydlafar

  December 1989

  January 1990

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  East Dyfed

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  3

  —

  Gwent

  —

  2

  4

  2

  4

  5

  3

  1

  2

  6

  7

  3

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  8

  6

  4

  13

  5

  6

  2

  4

  4

  4

  —

  Powys

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  3

  2

  3

  7

  5

  3

  South Glamorgan

  5

  21

  29

  6

  12

  3

  6

  3

  5

  1

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  3

  3

  5

  2

  1

  6

  7

  18

  9

  3

  5

  England

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  8

  34

  42

  17

  31

  17

  25

  17

  32

  28

  23

  11

  Ophthalmic Treatment Centre, Bangor

  July 1990

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Gwynedd

  52

  40

  40

  34

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  126
  Chief Police Officers concerning the safety implications of using hand-held car telephones in moving vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Association of Chief Police Officers expressed the view that existing powers are sufficient to deal with this problem.

  A33
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport following two recent accidents on the A33, if he has any plans to speed up the completion date for the upgrading of this road to motorway standards.

  Mr. Chope
  No, the contract completion date for the widening of the Compton to Bassett section of the A33 trunk road is October 1991. We have however taken steps to provide additional coning, flashing lights and warning signs through the site of the works.

WALES

  Morriston Hospital, Swansea
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what bed complement is planned for the new burns and plastic surgery unit at Morriston hospital, Swansea.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The bed complement planned for the new burns, plastic and maxillofacial surgery unit at Morriston hospital is 122.

  Treatment Centres
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list against the name of each of the centres established in Wales as part of his Department's treatment centres initiative(a) the number of patients treated in each calendar month since the centre started work and (b) the number of patients within each calendar month's total, broken down to show how many came from each district health authority district in Wales and how many of those treated were from outside Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information showing the numbers treated at the treatment centres including those Welsh residents transferred from English lists is as follows:
  127

  July 1990

  August

  September

  October

  November

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  52

  40

  40

  40

  Surgical Treatment Centre, Bridgend

  April 1990

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  East Dyfed

  2

  6

  4

  9

  3

  11

  11

  10

  Gwent

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  2

  6

  Mid Glamorgan

  38

  22

  19

  24

  27

  20

  30

  38

  Powys

  —

  3

  2

  2

  2

  —

  2

  —

  South Glamorgan

  3

  3

  3

  6

  6

  7

  7

  9

  West Glamorgan

  1

  1

  2

  5

  3

  6

  9

  24

  England

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  45

  35

  30

  48

  43

  44

  62

  87

  Valleys Initiative
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will assess the impact on the unemployment figures of the valleys initiative in each of the areas covered by the initiative since the scheme started.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The unemployment rate in the whole of the area covered by the programme for the valleys has fallen by 4·1 per cent. since June 1988. This compares with a fall of 3·2 per cent. in Wales and 2·2 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Land Reclamation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the annual rate of land reclamation in the valleys of south Wales since 1979 with the amoant of money spent on land reclamation in south Wales each year since 1979.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall write to the hon. Lady and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been spent by his Department on public safety campaigns encouraging the use of domestic smoke alarms in each of the last five years; how much is budgeted for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None. The Home Office is responsible for fire safety publicity in Wales.

  Urban Programme Grant
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the annual urban programme grant for Wales for each year since the scheme started, giving the percentage increase or decrease each year and the rate of inflation for each of the corresponding years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is contained in the table for 1975–76 onwards. Information relating to earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  128

  Year

  UP allocation Wales £ million1

  Percentage change over previous year

  Percentage increase in GDP deflator

  1975–76

  2·91

  —

  —

  1976–77

  3·29

  +13·06

  13·54

  1977–78

  3·85

  +17·02

  13·69

  1978–79

  5·50

  +42·86

  10·88

  1979–80

  7·10

  + 29·09

  16·68

  1980–81

  9·10

  +28·17

  18·33

  1981–82

  10·90

  +19·78

  9·65

  1982–83

  18·60

  +70·64

  7·10

  1983–84

  17·70

  -4·84

  4·62

  1984–85

  22·10

  +24·86

  5·08

  1985–86

  19·20

  -13·12

  5·45

  1986–87

  23·70

  +23·44

  3·42

  1987–88

  23·10

  -2·53

  5·45

  1988–89

  24·60

  +6·49

  7·30

  1989–90

  27·60

  +12·20

  6·37

  1990–91

  32·50

  +17·75

  8·00

  1991–92

  34·00

  +4·62

  6·00

  1 Allocation represents the level of expenditure approved, made up of 75 per cent. grant and 25 per cent. local authority contribution.

SCOTLAND

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list the estimated number of households with a car in(a) Falkirk district, (b) Stirling district and (c) Clackmannan district, and express these figures as a percentage of all households in each district.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest information available is from the 1981 census of population and is shown in the table:

  Households with at least one car available

  District

  Number

  Percentage of all households

  Falkirk

  27,525

  54·6

  Stirling

  16,585

  61·5

  Clackmannan

  9,626

  58·3

  Births (Central Region)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list, for each of the past 10 years, the number of births by postal code of the residence of the mother for each postal code area in Central region.
  129
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Births by postcode sector of usual residence of mother, Central Region, 1980 to 1989

  Year

  Postcode sector

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  FK1 1

  16

  20

  16

  17

  14

  21

  25

  22

  17

  18

  FK1 2

  149

  142

  142

  111

  109

  115

  105

  108

  118

  98

  FK1 3

  30

  23

  27

  30

  23

  29

  25

  33

  37

  25

  FK1 4

  129

  119

  110

  115

  77

  116

  97

  101

  99

  119

  FK1 5

  63

  54

  60

  50

  70

  59

  58

  50

  56

  52

  FK2 0

  203

  181

  176

  184

  179

  179

  154

  189

  162

  158

  FK2 7

  107

  127

  113

  147

  127

  127

  133

  157

  147

  141

  FK2 8

  85

  80

  72

  93

  84

  90

  70

  106

  97

  59

  FK2 9

  129

  111

  114

  130

  107

  127

  105

  110

  104

  100

  FK3 0

  109

  116

  116

  126

  125

  117

  92

  127

  108

  107

  FK3 8

  69

  62

  60

  71

  71

  74

  70

  73

  72

  66

  FK3 9

  80

  69

  73

  66

  47

  75

  61

  62

  64

  62

  FK4 1

  131

  122

  142

  111

  127

  135

  128

  95

  126

  98

  FK4 2

  39

  42

  45

  29

  32

  32

  26

  27

  18

  34

  FK5 3

  64

  59

  54

  59

  54

  73

  60

  45

  50

  47

  FK5 4

  137

  122

  121

  115

  141

  127

  138

  136

  122

  122

  FK6 5

  145

  125

  113

  126

  114

  107

  106

  101

  112

  117

  FK6 6

  83

  87

  68

  65

  67

  57

  61

  69

  63

  62

  FK7 0

  68

  58

  59

  54

  59

  52

  55

  60

  54

  63

  FK7 7

  141

  125

  136

  128

  131

  136

  120

  147

  128

  121

  FK7 8

  54

  37

  45

  43

  54

  68

  50

  84

  52

  73

  FK7 9

  109

  98

  117

  107

  121

  96

  82

  110

  88

  94

  FK8 1

  157

  158

  149

  137

  127

  145

  129

  149

  137

  123

  FK8 2

  36

  30

  22

  24

  22

  21

  27

  25

  30

  21

  FK8 3

  46

  47

  52

  50

  58

  50

  53

  44

  53

  52

  FK9 4

  50

  54

  40

  49

  58

  50

  45

  64

  52

  57

  FK9 5

  63

  74

  71

  75

  56

  68

  69

  60

  83

  67

  FK10 1

  89

  93

  107

  79

  70

  103

  78

  89

  90

  80

  FK10 2

  180

  223

  157

  173

  186

  194

  210

  191

  215

  165

  FK10 3

  103

  109

  115

  112

  105

  97

  107

  106

  102

  107

  FK10 4

  44

  54

  51

  42

  45

  53

  50

  37

  50

  36

  FK11 7

  50

  14

  29

  30

  29

  23

  20

  25

  21

  13

  FK12 5

  84

  71

  65

  49

  78

  55

  57

  72

  62

  57

  FK13 6

  93

  87

  94

  88

  81

  85

  83

  91

  97

  84

  FK14 7

  30

  23

  29

  19

  24

  30

  26

  19

  33

  15

  FK15 0

  39

  46

  35

  38

  27

  33

  25

  37

  35

  34

  FK15 9

  33

  62

  48

  44

  48

  46

  50

  62

  52

  40

  FK16 6

  14

  13

  24

  19

  20

  21

  23

  23

  20

  25

  FK17 8

  40

  24

  39

  29

  32

  25

  32

  25

  20

  34

  FK18 8

  —

  3

  2

  1

  1

  3

  —

  2

  —

  2

  FK19 8

  3

  6

  8

  2

  3

  2

  4

  3

  3

  6

  FK20 8

  2

  5

  6

  10

  2

  3

  5

  2

  5

  2

  FK21 6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  FK21 8

  9

  4

  6

  19

  7

  8

  7

  6

  13

  9

  G62 8

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  1

  4

  2

  —

  3

  G63 0

  36

  34

  42

  34

  31

  31

  43

  39

  36

  50

  G63 9

  69

  61

  39

  46

  40

  52

  49

  38

  53

  50

  G67 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G68 0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G83 7

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  G83 9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  EH49 6

  13

  13

  12

  10

  11

  11

  12

  14

  11

  6

  EH49 7

  5

  5

  6

  7

  4

  6

  1

  10

  3

  4

  EH51 0

  108

  119

  81

  97

  70

  86

  72

  62

  63

  77

  EH51 9

  96

  109

  88

  72

  89

  100

  80

  90

  97

  85

  KY13 7

  —

  5

  —

  1

  9

  3

  1

  3

  2

  2

  Other Postcodes

  15

  13

  10

  24

  10

  14

  18

  16

  14

  7

  TOTAL

  3,648

  3,538

  3,407

  3,360

  3,277

  3,431

  3,201

  3,418

  3,346

  3,150

  Note: The births included in the table are those which occurred anywhere in Scotland to mothers resident in Central region and those few (shown against "other postcodes") which occurred in Central region to mothers resident outside Scotland.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been spent by his Department on public safety campaigns encouraging the use of domestic smoke alarms in each of the last five years; how much money is budgeted for the current year; and if he will make a statement.
  130
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Home and Health Department has spent the following amounts in connection with these campaigns:

  £

  1987–88

  7,500

  1988–89

  89,000

  1989–90

  51,000

  11990–91

  84,000

  1 Estimate.

  131
  The Department will continue to encourage the installation of domestic smoke alarms in Scotland through media advertising and the provision of publicity material to the eight Scottish fire brigades for their local campaigns.

  Sandeels
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has yet received sufficient data to give a reliable estimate on the recruitment level of sandeels in Shetland waters in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The results of the most recent assessment carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries marine laboratory, Aberdeen indicate the size of the 1989 year class of sandeels as 25,327 million. This is regarded as being approximately average abundance. This provisional scientific assessment and related advice is being studied closely. We will consult fishery and other interests very shortly regarding 1991 management arrangements for the Shetland sandeel fishery.

  Dogs
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has received to the consultation paper "The Control of Dogs"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: In Scotland we have received to date 110 responses to the consultation paper which was issued jointly with the Home Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment. Most of the responses which we received were supportive of our proposals and my right hon. Friend will wish to consider carefully with colleagues what further action on dogs might be appropriate.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the efficiency of agriculture in terms of output and value of output per person engaged in each of the EEC countries; and if he will list them in league order.

  Mr. Curry
  Member states' shares of Community agricultural output are shown in column(a) of the table: information on gross value added—a measure of agricultural output—per annual labour unit on average is shown in column (b). The information provides only a broad guide to comparative labour productivity for the agriculture sector as a whole: comparisons are affected by exchange rates, including differences between green and market rates, price levels and many other factors including variations in the weather. Labour productivity is a partial measure of overall efficiency since it ignores other factors of production, notably capital: comprehensive comparisons of productivity are not available. Less than 15 per cent. of Community output is produced in member states with higher labour productivity than the United Kingdom whereas over three quarters of Community output is accounted for by member states where labour productivity on average is lower than in the United Kingdom.
  132

  Share of Community agricultural output average 1987 and 1988

  Gross value added1per annual labour unit average 1987 to 1989 (forcast)

  per cent.

  £2

  (a)

  (b)

  Netherlands

  7·7

  22,400

  Denmark

  3·4

  21,300

  Belgium

  3·0

  17,000

  United Kingdom

  9·6

  12,200

  Luxembourg

  0·1

  11,500

  France

  23·2

  10,700

  Germany

  14·4

  10,600

  Italy

  18·9

  7,100

  Ireland

  2·1

  6,600

  Spain

  12·1

  35,300

  Greece

  3·8

  4,600

  Portugal

  1·7

  1,200

  1 Gross value added is the value of output minus current material inputs.

  2 Rounded to nearest £100.

  3 Relates to average of 1987 and 1988.

  Sources: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food calculations based on Eurostat information.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the state of agriculture.

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

  Cereals
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been deducted from farmers in each of the 12 EEC states in cereals co-responsibility levy in each year since its inception; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Information provided by the Commission of the European Communities on cereals co-responsibility levy receipts in each member state is set out in the table. These omit Portugal because under its accession terms Portuguese farmers are exempt from levy until 1991. It should be noted that levy is not necessarily collected in the country of origin of the grain.

  MECU (Budget)

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Belgium

  5·203

  18·958

  13·814

  12·89

  Denmark

  1·841

  12·081

  9·615

  35·39

  Germany

  16·749

  65·130

  132·853

  67·15

  Greece

  0·877

  1·458

  6·084

  6·19

  Spain

  —

  38·765

  33·971

  69·91

  France

  10·337

  103·625

  305·016

  311·61

  Ireland

  0·766

  4·131

  9·390

  6·68

  Italy

  10·074

  37·430

  33·589

  56·24

  Luxembourg

  0·069

  0·419

  0·280

  0·30

  Netherlands

  0·769

  22·110

  20·210

  6·74

  United Kingdom

  9·745

  62·732

  71·837

  116·11

  EEC

  56·430

  361·839

  636·660

  689·22

DEFENCE

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether his Department has a record of exports of defence equipment and munitions to Yugoslavia for each year during the period 1980 to 1990;

  (2) whether the defence export services organisation maintains records of exports of defence material on a country-by-country basis;

  (3) whether his Department has a record of exports of defence equipment and munitions to Cyprus for each year 1980 to 1990.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. Statistics of United Kingdom defence exports, derived from Customs and Excise, are set out by broad geographical regions in volume 2 of the annual SDE.

  Astra Holdings plc
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has, at any time, received information from representatives of Astra Holdings plc relating to the export activities of its former subsidiary PRB.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Shortly after acquiring PRB, Astra Holdings plc consulted the MOD about certain contracts which the company had inherited through its acquisition. These discussions took place in confidence.

  Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date a licence was first issued to the Essex and Suffolk hunt to hunt on his Ministry's land at Colchester; and how frequently the licence is renewable.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Essex and Suffolk hunt has had a licence to hunt on Ministry of Defence land since before 1974. Records before that date are no longer retained. The licence is renewed annually.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the licence issued to the Essex and Suffolk hunt to hunt on his Ministry's land at Colchester in the Library.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. The full terms of the licence are commercial-in-confidence between my Department and the Essex and Suffolk hunt.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual fee paid by the Essex and Suffolk hunt to hunt on his Ministry's land at Colchester.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This information is commercialin-confidence between my Department and the Essex and Suffolk hunt.

  Light Bulbs
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to encourage the use of low-energy light bulbs in his Department's buildings and offices.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is our policy to install the most efficient suitable lighting systems in all newly designed 134
  buildings and offices, and in those undergoing major refurbishment. On existing installations the use of low-energy light bulbs is encouraged where practical.

  Over-the-horizon Radar
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the appropriated funds required for the United States' share of the proposed joint United States-United Kingdom trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom was requested from the United States Congress in fiscal year 1991; and how much of this was authorised or appropriated.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This is a matter for the United States Government.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements currently exist for the disposal of nuclear waste from the atomic weapons establishment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Nuclear waste is disposed of from the atomic weapons establishment taking advantage of nationally available disposal routes under arrangements which are overseen by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution of the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is intended that the company running the atomic weapons establishment after contractorisation will be able to alter the redundancy arrangements of the staff of the atomic weapons establishment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The redundancy arrangements will form part of the conditions of service of staff. Any changes to the conditions of service will be a matter for negotiation between the contractor and the trade unions.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make it his policy to release information on the number of staff in the safety division stationed at(a) the atomic weapons establishment, Cardiff, (b) the atomic weapons establishment, Burghfield, and (c) the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston, following the evidence given to the Select Committee on Defence, printed on page 81 of its ninth report, Session 1989–90, HC 237.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. It would not be in the national interest to do so.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are envisaged for the disposal of nuclear waste from the atomic weapons establishment after its contractorisation.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The arrangements for the disposal of nuclear waste from the atomic weapons establishment will continue to be overseen by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution of the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what differences there will be in the index-linking arrangements between the new atomic weapons establishment pension scheme that is due to be arranged as a result
  135
  of the contractorisation of the atomic weapons establishment and the existing principal civil service pension scheme and the UKAEA pension scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  It is intended that the benefit terms of the new AWE pension scheme include provision for pensions to be increased in line with PCSPS or principal non-industrial superannuation scheme increases.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements currently exist for redundancy payments under the principal civil service pension scheme and the UKAEA scheme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The current arrangements for making redundancy payments to AWE staff are set out in section 10 of the PCSPS and section 8 of the UK AEA PNISS. Broadly, these provide for benefits according to age, length of qualifying service and rate of pay at the time of redundancy. In the unlikely event that the redundancy benefits of PCSPS and the UKAEA PNISS amount to less than the statutory provision, staff may receive a special payment to bring them up to the level paid under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are planned for redundancy payments under the new AWE pension scheme that is due to be arranged as a result of the contractorisation of the atomic weapons establishment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The new redundancy scheme will provide redundancy payments which, when taken together with those of the new pension scheme, will be at least as good as those currently provided under the PCSPS and UKAEA PNISS arrangements. However, in view of AWE's continuing need for staff, and the Government's firm commitment to the nuclear programme, redundancies are unlikely.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the proposed relationship between the compliance directorate and the safety division of the atomic weapons establishment under phase 2 of the contractorisation programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The MOD compliance directorate based at AWE will be independent of the establishment's division. It will be staffed by Crown servants and, to carry out their role of contract oversight and compliance, there will need to be a close and co-operative relationship between them and the contractor's safety division.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to ensure that the company currently producing proposals for the full contractorisation of the atomic weapons establishment will not derive an unfair advantage in competing for the contract in 1992.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The interim-management contractor is not responsible for formulating proposals for full contractorisation of AWE. This task is the responsibility of the MOD and the usual steps will be taken to ensure full and fair competition for the eventual operating contract.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will be the employer of members of staff in the safety division of the atomic weapons establishment under the proposed contractorisation.
  136
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The staff of the safety division will become part of the contractor's organisation on full contractorisation.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is envisaged that the company that wins the contract to operate the atomic weapons establishment will have the power to alter the pension arrangements for the staff of the atomic weapons establishment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The new AWE pension scheme will be set up under trust deed which will include the rules of the scheme. The scheme will be managed by a trustee company specially set up for this purpose. The board of this trustee company will include persons nominated by the employing company, the Ministry of Defence and the members, or their representatives. In this way, members will have a say in the operation of the scheme. Any changes in the terms of the scheme will be negotiated between the employing company-commercial manager and the trade unions. MOD approval will be required before any changes in benefits or contributions can be implemented.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the company selected to operate the atomic weapons establishment after contractorisation will be allowed to alter the number and grades of staff in the safety division of the establishment.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The contractor will be bound by strict safety requirements which will include the maintenance of a fully effective internal safety organisation. The compliance directorate will ensure that safety requirements are met effectively and efficiently. Any detailed changes the contractor may wish to make would have to be compatible with this requirement.

  HMS Challenger
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total cost involved in the construction, repair, renewal and redesign of HMS Challenger at current market prices and the anticipated reserve price proposed for the vessel at this period.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The total project acquisition cost of HMS Challenger, together with the cost of the two docking periods which she has undergone is some £240 million at 1990–91 prices. The arrangements for the sale of the vessel are commercially confidential.

  Iraqi Supergun
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on whether Iraq has test-fired a supergun.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not the practice to comment on such matters.

  Adjutant General's Corps
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has determined which existing corps and functions should be included in the new Adjutant General's Corps; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has decided that the Adjutant General's Corps should include the following existing Corps, which will retain their individual cap badges:
  137

  Corps of Royal Military Police

  Military Provost Staff Corps

  Royal Army Educational Corps

  Army Legal Corps

  The Adjutant General's Corps will also include a new Corps, covering various administrative functions, whose title has not yet been determined. This new Corps will be responsible for the functions currently undertaken by the Royal Army Pay Corps, the staff clerk functions undertaken by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps and the Women's Royal Army Corps, and all other regimental clerks. Those members of the WRAC who do not elect to join existing Corps under our plans for the wider employment of women will also become members of this new Corps.

  The Royal Army Chaplains' Department will not form part of the AG Corps, but will be closely associated with it and supported administratively by the Corps.

  The formation of a single Adjutant General's Corps will offer a firm basis for rationalisation of the Army's personnel services and contribute to the reductions being sought in the support area following my right hon. Friend's statement on 25 July concerning "Options for Change".

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) visually impaired people, (b) deaf people, (c) mentally handicapped people and (d) people with agoraphobia will receive (i) lower rate attendance component of the disability living allowance, (ii) middle rate attendance component, (iii) higher rate attendance component, (iv) lower rate mobility component and (v) higher rate mobility component.

  Mr. Scott
  The numbers of people in each category who will receive the various rates of disability living allowance cannot be predicted reliably. The estimates in the table for the new lower rates of each component are derived from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys disability surveys, and give the numbers of people with each of these disabilities who come into the projected eligible populations. For the rates of the disability living allowance which equate to the existing benefits, the figures are based on those who in 1985 reported receipt of attendance allowance or mobility allowance in the OPCS surveys. Given the substantial increases in the caseloads for both benefits since 1985, the numbers in these groups will inevitably be much higher now.

  Rent rebates Great Britain (000)

  Percentage of local authority tenants1

  Rate rebates England and Wales only (000)

  Percentage of local authority tenants1

  House benefit recipients also in receipt of income support

  735

  (24)

  615

  (20)

  Housing benefit recipients not in receipt of income support

  950

  (30)

  755

  (24)

  TOTAL

  1,685

  (54)

  1,370

  (44)

  1 Local authority tenants are men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over.

  Source:

  (a) Housing Benefit Management Information System annual statistical enquiry, and

  (b) Department of Employment Labour Force Survey April 1989.
  138

  Table 1

  Lower rates (in thousands)

  Care (i)

  Mobility (iv)

  (a) Visually impaired people

  40

  55

  (b) [Deaf people

  10

  15]

  People with hearing impairments

  60

  65

  (c) Mentally handicapped people

  30

  75

  (d) People with agoraphobia cannot be identified from the OPCS data but these people are amongst the groups intended to be covered by the criteria for the lower rate mobility component.

  Table 2

  Higher rates (in thousands)

  care (ii)

  care (iii)

  mobility (v)

  (a) Visually impaired people

  95

  85

  70

  (b) Deaf people

  30

  25

  15

  People with hearing impairments

  115

  85

  90

  (c) Mentally handicapped people

  55

  40

  35

  Benefit Payments (Worksop)
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the reasons why his Department's payments have not been made to claimants in Worksop; and when he expects the situation to return to normal.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Severe weather conditions on 10 and 11 December meant that the DSS office in Worksop was without power or water and the office had to be closed. Partial restoration of services on 12 December allowed the office to reopen that day. Management also opened a caller office in Retford to help make urgent payments. Normal service has now been restored.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many local authority tenants of pensionable age are in receipt of(a) full housing benefit and (b) partial housing benefit; and what percentage they are of the total number of local authority tenants of pensionable age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that the number of recipients aged 60 and over in receipt of housing benefit at 31 May 1989 was:

  Pensioners
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Walsall, North on 7 December,Official Report, column 233, he will publish similar estimates for April 1991; if he will include an allowance for the shortfall in the 1979 uprating relative to earnings; and if he will base his estimate of increases in earnings on data which would have been available shortly after each uprating.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The full rate of basic retirement pension, if revalued since 1979 by the higher of the annual percentage increase in prices or earnings six months before the date of the uprating would be £21·05 higher for a couple based solely on the husband's contribution and £13·05 more for a single person. The cost to the national insurance fund of these increases would amount to about £6 billion a year. It is not possible to calculate extra amounts on the basis of increases in earnings available after the April 1991 uprating.

  Pensioners' Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what level the Christmas bonus for senior citizens would now stand if the original payment when first introduced in 1972 had been uprated by(a) the rise in retail prices or (b) the rise in average earnings; what is the estimated cost of paying the pensioners' Christmas bonus at £10 in the current year; what would be the cost of increasing it by (i) 50 per cent., (ii) 100 per cent., (iii) sufficient to take account of (a) and (iv) sufficient to take account of (b); and whether he has any plans for future increases in the payment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  If the Christmas bonus had been uprated each year since 1972 in line with the increase in retail prices it would now be worth approximately £52. If it had been uprated each year since 1972 in line with earnings it would now be worth approximately £70.

  The estimated cost of paying the pensioners' Christmas bonus in 1990–91 is approximately £114 million. Increasing it by 50 per cent. would cost an extra £57 million; increasing it by 100 per cent. would cost an extra £114 million.

  Increasing the Christmas bonus to £52 would cost an extra £479 million and increasing it to £70 would cost an extra £684 million.

  We have no plans at present for increasing the payment.

  Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list any opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of his Department since 1 January 1985 giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: Details of most surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of the Department are contained in the DHSS yearbooks of research and development 1985–88 and in the Department of Health yearbook of research and development 1989, copies of which are in the Library. Opinion surveys have also been conducted as part of the following customer research activities:
  140

  Survey

  Dale of Fieldwork

  Purpose

  1. Public Attitudes to Social Secuirty

  January 1985

  Commissioned as part of the background to the review of social security to add to and bring up-to-date information already available from past surveys about people's views of social security. Details published in Cmnd 9519

  Family Credit Campaign Evaluation

  April 1989—March 1990

  Evaluation of the Family Credit Campaign

  Attendance Allowance Medical Examination

  February—March 1990

  To measure claimants' views of the Attendance Allowance Medical examination

  Disability Benefit Information

  April 1990

  Evaluation of Disability Benefit Information Freeline trials

  Community Charge Benefit Leaflets

  April 1990

  To check understanding of benefit in relation to new leaflet and press advertisements

  Benefit target groups

  April 1990

  Research in relation to providing information

  DSS Advertising

  April 1990

  Testing of telephone directories as suitable media for DSS advertising of local office addresses

  Family Credit Advertising

  April 1990

  Evaluation of Family Credit advertising in Child Benefit order books and/or order book information awareness

  Methods of Payment of Benefits

  November—December '90

  To assess awareness of and attitudes towards methods of payment of Retirement Pension, Child Benefit and Income Support

  Taxi Fares (Reimbursement)
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances taxi fares will be paid to claimants attending a regional medical service examination for invalidity benefit; what is the procedure for claiming taxi fares in advance; what is the procedure for reimbursing claimants their taxi fares; what is the average length of time taken to reimburse claimants' taxi fares; and how much has been paid out in taxi fares.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Taxi fares are not ordinarily reimbursed to claimants attending a regional medical service examination for invalidity benefit. They may be paid if the claimant is unable to travel by public transport because of illness or disability, or if public transport is not available at the time of attendance.

  A claimant wishing to claim taxi fares should contact the divisional medical office in advance. Each application is assessed individually and, if authorised, the claimant will be reimbursed at the time of examination.
  141
  If the claimant requests taxi fares at the time of examination, the public transport fares are paid immediately, and the request for the excess taxi fare forwarded to the divisional medical office. If authorised, the claim is either paid direct by the divisional medical office or forwarded to the regional finance office, DSS, for payment. The claim is usually reimbursed within 10 days.

  The annual cost of reimbursing taxi fares is approximately £800 per year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ulster Agricultural Organisation Society
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for financial support for the Ulster Agricultural Organisation Society Ltd.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have no proposals to provide financial support to the Ulster Agricultural Organisation Society Ltd. The organisation is, I understand, examining other possible ways of supplementing its income.

  Eating Disorders Association
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance he will make available to the Eating Disorders Association self-help group in Northern Ireland for the financial year commencing 1 April 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department of Health and Social Services has grant-aided the central administrative costs of the Eating Disorders Association since its formation in Northern Ireland in 1985. The current year's grant is £9,240. Grant aid for the financial year 1991–92 will not be determined before March 1991.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the health and environmental implications of the decision by processing plants not to accept fallen animals for disposal; and what proposals he has to provide alternative means of disposal of such animals in Upper Bann.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am aware of the recent decision by the rendering plants not to accept fallen animals. The Department of Agriculture issued advice to farmers and others on disposal of fallen animals in the present circumstances.

  The Department is also ready to advise the industry on any proposals it may make to provide alternative means of disposal. It is the responsibility of the agriculture industry, like that of any other industry, to exercise a duty of care in the safe disposal of its waste and protect public health and the environment.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the Department of Agriculture will adopt following the withdrawal of a collection service in respect of fallen animals.
  142
  Mr. Hanley
  The agriculture industry is responsible for the safe disposal of its waste products in a manner which safeguards public health and avoids harm to the environment.

  The Department of Agriculture has issued advice to the industry on the existing alternative disposal arrangements. It will continue to advise the industry on any new proposals which the industry may make.

  Security
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Seventy-four people have died in Northern Ireland this year as a result of the security situation. Up to 30 September 1990, 288 people had been charged with terrorist-type offences, including six for murder and 49 for attempted murder, and 307 had been convicted of terrorist-type offences including two for murder and 21 for attempted murder.

  Lough Neagh (Search and Rescue)
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to take any action to enhance search and rescue facilities on Lough Neagh.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Responsibility for the preservation of life on Lough Neagh rests with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In addition to the RUC and other emergency services there is a voluntary search and rescue service for the lough which has a vessel maintained by Craigavon borough council. In order to enhance this service the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland intends to make a one-off grant of £60,000 to the council for the purchase of a second vessel and ancillary equipment.

  Parliamentary approval to this new expenditure will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, vote 4, section G. Pending that approval urgent expenditure estimated at £60,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any information on the costs of independent homes for persons in need and nursing homes in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  Copies of a report of a survey undertaken by Price Waterhouse, management consultants during July and August 1990 have been placed in the Library. Information about running and other costs was obtained from a sample of 72 registered homes for persons in need and nursing homes in respect of financial years commencing between October 1989 and May 1990. The key findings of the survey are as follows:
  143

  Costs per bed per week1

  Sample size

  Running costs £

  Running costs and capital costs £

  Running costs, capital costs and profit £

  Homes for persons in need

  35

  Median

  102·60

  126·10

  134·41

  Mean

  112·03

  137·80

  146·76

  Nursing homes

  37

  Median

  160·17

  197·01

  209·82

  Mean

  157·90

  194·22

  206·85

  1 Assuming a 90 per cent. occupancy rate.

  The present income support levels exceed these figures.

EMPLOYMENT

  HSE Inspectors
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what date the HSE began separately to itemise expenditure on overseas subsistence and travel by inspectors of principal grade and above in its budget.

  Mr. Forth
  Expenditure on overseas travel and subsistence is not recorded separately from other travel and subsistence costs on HSE's accounting system.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fraudulent claims by HSE principal grade and above inspectors have been identified in each of the last four years; and what action has been taken against those involved.

  Mr. Forth
  No fraudulent claims by HSE inspectors have been identified in the last four years.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the current procedures for the authorisation and payment of overseas travelling and subsistence allowances for HSE inspectors of principal grade and above; and what steps are taken to check the validity of all such payments.

  Mr. Forth
  All journeys to foreign countries by HSE staff require prior written approval at unified grade 3 or above before the visit can be undertaken.

  Staff are provided with guidance on their entitlement to travelling and subsistence allowances by a headquarters section which checks for accuracy all claims made. As a further check on the validity of the claims, a proportion are returned to line managers.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young persons aged 16 or 17 years have applied for, and have been turned down for, a YTS place in the last year; and how many 16 or 17-year-olds he estimates are currently without a job, YTS place, or any benefit.

  Mr. Forth
  All young people under 18 years who are not in full-time education or a job and are seeking training are guaranteed a suitable place on youth training. The number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are currently without a job, YTS place, or any benefit, and who are not in full-time education, is not available.

  Training (Budget Allocations)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce a table showing the budget allocations for the financial year 1990–91 for each (i) Training Agency area office and (ii) approved TEC showing the planned budget allocations for each area office and approved TEC for the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  The allocated budgets for each of the approved training and enterprise councils for the financial year 1990–91 are set out in the table. Budget allocations for the financial year 1991–92 are not yet available. Budgets are not allocated to area offices.

  Total allocated budget £ million

  South East

  Isle of Wight

  1·50

  Hertfordshire

  10·10

  Heart of England

  4·25

  Hampshire

  13·18

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  2·80

  Kent

  8·54

  Essex

  14·47

  Thames Valley

  10·50

  London

  AZTEC

  4·68

  South West

  Somerset

  6·88

  Dorset

  10·74

  Devon/Cornwall

  39·94

  West Midlands

  Walsall

  4·24

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  12·94

  Staffordshire

  16·71

  Birmingham

  12·35

  East Midlands

  North Nottinghamshire

  12·02

  Suffolk

  8·40

  Norfolk and Waverney

  17·33

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  17·58

  North Yorkshire

  10·02

  Rotherham

  6·99

  Sheffield

  11·59

  Leeds

  8·59

  North West

  South and East Cheshire

  6·67

  East Lancashire

  12·56

  METROTEC (Wigan)

  6·12

  Cumbria

  13·94

  Rochdale

  5·60

  Bolton and Bury

  4·50

  145

  Total allocated budget £ million

  Oldham

  7·40

  Stockport and High Peak

  4·76

  Manchester

  32·09

  Northern

  County Durham

  15·91

  Tyneside

  31·23

  Wearside

  17·39

  Teeside

  28·68

  Northumberland

  7·04

  Wales

  West Wales

  17·74

  North East Wales

  5·48

  Mid Glamorgan

  11·83

  Individual budget figures relate to the period from the date when the TEC became operational to the end of the 1990–91 financial year.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce a table showing the ET and YT budget allocations for each Training Agency area office and each approved TEC for the financial year 1990–91 and the planned budget allocations for the same during the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  The allocated budgets for ET and YT for each of the approved training and enterprise councils (TECs) for the financial year 1990–91 are set out in the table. Budget allocations for the financial year 1991–92 are not yet available. Budgets are not allocated to area offices.

  £ million

  YT

  ET

  South East

  Isle of Wight

  0·65

  0·34

  Hertfordshire

  4·44

  1·96

  Heart of England

  2·24

  0·81

  Hampshire

  7·72

  3·00

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks

  1·52

  0·59

  Kent

  5·36

  2·66

  Essex

  9·90

  5·41

  Thames Valley

  5·04

  2·02

  London

  AZTEC

  1·72

  1·40

  South West

  Somerset

  3·69

  1·24

  Dorset

  5·9

  2·15

  Devon–Cornwall

  21·05

  10·98

  West Midlands

  Walsall

  2·09

  1·43

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  7·08

  3·14

  Staffordshire

  10·02

  3·43

  Birmingham

  4·86

  4·25

  East Midlands

  North Nottinghamshire

  6·70

  2·56

  Suffolk

  4·84

  1·29

  Norfolk and Waveney

  9·39

  4·56

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  9·40

  5·13

  North Yorkshire

  4·71

  2·78

  Rotherham

  2·97

  2·58

  Sheffield

  5·23

  3·85

  Leeds

  3·77

  2·48

  146

  £ million

  YT

  ET

  North West

  South and East Cheshire

  3·77

  0·92

  East Lancashire

  6·71

  2·95

  METROTEC (Wigan)

  3·42

  1·83

  Cumbria

  7·77

  2·92

  Rochdale

  2·64

  1·61

  Bolton and Bury

  2·58

  0·79

  Oldham

  4·36

  1·40

  Stockport and High Peak

  2·55

  1·11

  Manchester

  14·29

  9·56

  Northern

  County Durham

  8·64

  5·15

  Tyneside

  17·10

  7·60

  Wearside

  8·50

  6·40

  Teesside

  14·80

  11·80

  Northumberland

  3·49

  1·77

  Wales

  West Wales

  7·15

  6·11

  North East Wales

  3·05

  1·28

  Mid Glamorgan

  6·70

  4·28

  Individual budget figures relate to the period from the date when the TEC became operational to the end of the 1990–91 financial year.

  Tourism (Northumbria)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers employed in tourism and related employment in the Northumbria tourist board area in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The only information for the Northumbria tourist board area in the period requested is for September 1987, when the estimated number of employees in tourism-related industries was 60,000. This figure does not include the self-employed, for whom comparable estimates are not available.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the method of calculation of estimates of monthly and quarterly employment in the apparel, knitting and textiles industries; and what is his Department's assessment of the possible margin of error;

  (2) what was the extent of revisions to his Department's estimates of employment in the apparel, knitting and textiles industries following the most recent census of employment and labour force survey; and what were the reasons for these;

  (3) what expressions of concern he has received from the apparel, knitting and textiles industries about the accuracy of his Department's estimates of employment in these industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Estimates are based on periodic censuses of employment, updated by employment trends shown in the monthly and quarterly samples of employers in the relevant industries. Estimates for periods since the latest census are adjusted to reflect employment trends indicated in the annual labour force surveys. Margins of error depend on a number of factors which are not capable of being fully quantified. Between censuses, samples for the apparel and knitwear industries are too small to merit their separate publication. Revisions to the estimates for the textile industries are shown in the table.

  Current methods for producing monthly and quarterly estimates do not fully reflect the opening and closures of

  147
  business after the latest census benchmark. Officials met representatives of the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance on 12 April 1990, and acknowledged that this would be a problem for industries characterised by a high number of closures. Officials explained that work on improving the monthly and quarterly estimates had begun in September 1989 and that progress was carefully monitored by Ministers. Details of these plans were revealed at the statistics users conference in November 1990.

  Employees in employment—Great Britain Textiles industry (Class 43) (SIC 1980)

  Thousands

  Pre Census 1987

  Post Census 1987

  Post LFS 1989

  June 1989

  206·4

  217·8

  217·7

  December 1989

  —

  —

  214·6

  Accident Claims
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply of 3 December,Official Report, column 40, what is the statutory basis for the Health and Safety Executive's charge for factual statements requested in connection with civil claims.

  Mr. Forth
  Section 13(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 empowers the Health and Safety Executive acting on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission to charge for the provision of factual statements.

  Employers (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions of employers there have been in Scotland in every year since 1960 for producing false records.

  Mr. Forth
  Since 1960 there has been one such prosecution under wages council legislation and that was in 1982.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions of employers there have been in Scotland in every year since 1960 for illegal underpayment of wages.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been five such prosecutions under wages council legislation since 1960, one in 1962 and four in 1977.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions of employers there have been in Scotland in every year since 1960 for failure to produce records.

  Mr. Forth
  Since 1960 there has been one such prosecution under wages council legislation and that was in 1979.

  Restart
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people attended a restart interview in the six months ended September, and what were the results of those interviews.
  148
  Mr. Jackson
  The restart interview programme provides a framework within which the Employment Service provides help for long-term unemployed people. It provides a gateway to the range of employment and training opportunities available as well as being a means of ensuring that claimants remain available for and are actively seeking work.

  During the period in question 630,000 people were interviewed and immediately following their interview 10,500 started work, 35,600 began training under employment training, 27,300 started in job club, 14,400 started a restart course and 4,200 attended an enterprise allowance scheme awareness day.

  These figures reflect only the direct results of restart. We do not know how many people subsequently take up a job or a place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview.

  Over the same period the Employment Service as a whole placed 118,000 long-term unemployed people into work, 74,500 into employment training, 68,600 into job club and 7,700 into enterprise allowance schemes.

HEALTH

  Family Doctors
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much spending on the family doctor service has risen in the last 11 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Eighty-five per cent. in real terms.

  Cornwall Air Ambulance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will review his decision not to contribute to the funding of the Cornwall air ambulance during the period of its evaluation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Drug Prescribing
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that general practitioners will not be prevented or restricted from prescribing drugs by the action of family health service associations.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The indicative prescribing scheme will promote quality in this part of the health service and will in no way prevent general practitioners from prescribing all the drugs their patients need.

  Rural Health Facilities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he now proposes to introduce any new initiatives to improve health service facilities in rural areas.

  Mr. Dorrell
  From 1 April 1991 we shall introduce significant improvements with the rural practice payments scheme for general practitioners in truly rural areas and the health service reforms will ensure health and family health service authorities will in future pay particular attention to the needs of their residents for co-ordinated hospital, community and primary health care.

  Nottingham Health Authority
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the rate of increase in funding for the Nottingham health authority over the last five years has been.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Over the period 1985–86 to 1990–91 Nottingham health authority received an average annual revenue cash increase of 8–6 per cent., which represents a 13–1 per cent. real increase in resources.

  National Health Service and Community Care Act
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authorities are planning to implement the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 before April 1993.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The first phase of community care implementation under the Act begins in April 1991, when authorities will introduce complaints procedures and inspection units and the specific grants for services for mental illness and drugs and alcohol become available. But we know that many authorities intend to implement, at least in part, proposals scheduled for introduction in phases 2 and 3, in advance of the statutory requirements.

  Health Care Purchasing
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments he makes of the balance of advantage between health care providers and purchasers.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Patients will be the prime beneficiaries of the separation of the roles of purchasers and providers in the reformed national health service.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives he has to reduce hospital waiting lists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) earlier today.

  Community Health Services
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to improve the arrangements for liaison between community health service and social services departments concerning individual patient care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In implementing our policy for community care, social services departments and national health service authorities will be required by the National Health Service and Community Care Act to liaise in planning services. They will also need to work closely in the development of assessment and care management arrangements for the delivery of services to individuals.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of family planning services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We continue to regard family planning as an important health care service. Our policy 150
  remains that people should be free to choose their source of family planning advice and treatment and that health authority clinic services complement those provided by family doctors.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the proceedings of the London ambulance service board are made public.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The South West Thames regional health authority has overall responsibility for the London ambulance service—LAS—and the LAS board reports to the RHA. The purpose of the board is to develop and improve the management and operations of the LAS. It would not be appropriate for its proceedings to be made public. But an annual report will be published.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to allow new hospitals or existing non-national health service hospitals such as military hospitals to become self-governing national health service trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  New national health service hospitals will be eligible to apply for NHS trust status once they are operational. Any NHS hospital or other unit actively involved in patient care may apply for trust status. Military hospitals are the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and thus are not eligible.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service trust applications were rejected on the grounds of financial non-viability.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  None. The decisions on the trust applications were taken in the light of all the information available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, of which the financial assessment was one element.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the hours worked by junior doctors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yesterday I signed an agreement with the medical profession to reduce junior doctors' hours. Under the agreement—the result of intensive talks by representatives of all the relevant bodies —junior doctors will move towards a maximum working week of 72 hours on duty—and preferably less. As a first step, the Government will fund 200 new consultant and 50 new staff grade posts in England in 1991–92 in order to stimulate the introduction of changed working patterns. The other United Kingdom health departments will be making their financial contribution in support of this initiative.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much funding for general practitioner practice improvements has increased in the last 11 years.
  151
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Expenditure on GP premises has risen fourfold in real terms since 1979–80, with much of the increase due to payments through cost rent and improvement grants for improvements to premises.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of national health service funding will be next year; and what it was in 1978.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Next year the national health service in England will have a total of £26·2 billion to spend. This represents a real terms increase of 50 per cent. on the 1978–79 gross spending total of £6·5 billion.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of funding undertaken by his Department to promote hormone replacement therapy as a preventive treatment for menopausal illnesses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Decisions on prescribing hormone replacement therapy rest on clinical judgment and are therefore a professional matter. We were pleased to provide funding of £9,500 for a workshop on HRT and osteoporosis, a total of £53,000 to three voluntary organisations in this field, and £128,000 for research projects. The number of prescriptions for HRT in 1989 was 2·9 million which cost the NHS £295 million.

  Nurses (Training Courses)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average number of nurses attending training courses in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Neuroscience
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated net present value of the proposed capital spending of over £50 million to move neuroscience services from Shooters Hill to Denmark Hill.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The option appraisal demonstrated that the development at Denmark Hill would be the cheapest in capital terms and significantly better on non-financial service criteria such as integration, turbulence and timing. Calculation of the net present value would require non-financial service benefits to be expressed in monetary terms and this was not considered necessary.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the numbers of extra neuroscience consultations and procedures expected as the result of the proposed move of neuroscience from Shooters Hill to Denmark Hill.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The new centre at Denmark Hill will be a replacement facility designed for the same population served by the existing centres but which will offer a much improved standard of service. It is anticipated that it will treat approximately the same number of patients.
  152
  In addition, a completely new magnetic resonance imaging facility will be available which will offer a non-invasive, faster and more accurate diagnostic service.

  Nurses' Homes
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each London borough the amounts by which lodging charges in nurses' homes have been abated in 1990–91 to take account of the abolition of domestic rates.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Lodging charges in nurses' homes were abated from 1 April 1990 by standard percentages varying between 18·6 per cent. and 21·7 per cent.—the precise figure depending on the category of accommodation—after increases for 1990–91 were applied, to take account of the abolition of domestic rates. Health authorities have had a degree of flexibility over the charges they make since April 1989. Information on the cash value of abatements by London boroughs is not held centrally.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from organisations representing private care home owners regarding the availability of residential care for elderly and disabled persons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Representations from private care home owners have been received on a variety of issues including residential and nursing home aspects of the Government's plans for the future provision and development of community care.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities have transferred elderly residents' homes to independent trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to MIND's work for people with mental health problems to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 4 to 8 February 1991.

  Operations
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of national health service patients in 1990 who have had operations for (i) hysterectomies and (ii) prostate gland removals; and what is his estimate of the number of patients on the waiting list for these operations and the average time spent on the waiting list.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest figures available centrally show that in the year ending March 1989 there
  153
  were an estimated 65,000 completed episodes of hospital care for patients having an hysterectomy and 46,700 episodes for prostate gland removal. The estimated mean waiting time before admission for these operations was 14·1 weeks and 15·9 weeks respectively. Information about patients currently on waiting lists is collected by the specialty of intended treatment, not by individual diagnosis or condition.

  Juveniles (Remand in Custody)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the numbers and percentages of juveniles remanded to secure establishments by the magistrates courts of Cardiff, Bristol and London for the last available year; and what were the comparable figures five and 10 years ago.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There is no power for the courts to remand juveniles direct to local authority secure accommodation. Local authorities can place juveniles in secure accommodation who have been remanded to their care, but information is not collected centrally on the courts at which such juveniles appeared.

  Home Carers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a register of home carers in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to set up a register of home carers in England. Plans in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  HIV-AIDS Prevention Co-ordinator
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district HIV-AIDS prevention co-ordinators have been appointed; and how their work will be monitored and evaluated.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As at November 1990, more than 150 district health authorities in England had in place officers with responsibility for the co-ordination of district HIV prevention work. The Department has asked all district health authorities to finalise arrangements by March 1991.

  Monitoring and evaluation of co-ordinators' work will, primarily, be achieved through each regional health authority's annual AIDS (Control) Act report. The Department is currently considering HIV prevention co-ordinators' continuing support and training needs in the light of a national seminar held last month which I attended.

  Cancer
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the number of(a) men and (b) women whose death was caused by lung cancer for each year since 1979 for England and Wales;

  (2) if he will list the number of deaths caused by breast cancer for each year since 1979 in England and Wales.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The number of deaths with an underlying cause of(a) breast cancer and (b) lung cancer, in England and Wales 1979–89 is shown in the table:
  154

  Number of deaths with underlying cause (a) Breast cancer (b) Lung cancer, England and Wales 1979–89

  Year

  Breast cancer1

  Lung cancer1

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  1979

  83

  12,091

  26,834

  7,926

  1980

  78

  12,167

  26,783

  8,385

  1981

  84

  12,513

  26,297

  8,430

  1982

  87

  12,405

  25,962

  8,870

  1983

  87

  12,672

  26,502

  9,070

  1984

  99

  13,310

  26,041

  9,698

  1985

  79

  13,513

  25,994

  9,798

  1986

  105

  13,641

  25,235

  10,022

  1987

  89

  13,751

  24,830

  10,308

  1988

  73

  13,723

  24,671

  10,631

  1989

  76

  14,008

  23,821

  10,760

  1 International Classification of Disease Code 9th revision.

  174 malignant neoplasm of female breast.

  175 malignant neoplasm of male breast.

  162 malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung.

  HIV-AIDS Funds
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what international comparisons are available on Government funding within individual European countries for HIV and AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors have now opted for practice budgets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are currently around 325 practices undertaking the preparatory work necessary to become fund holders from 1 April 1991.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent consideration his Department has given to the call for an out-of-court settlement for people with haemophilia who were infected by the AIDS virus in the course of national health service treatment.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 11 December at columns 364–65.

  Diabetics (Disposable Needles)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available on prescription for diabetics suitable disposable needles for insulin pen-type injections.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS supply arrangements for insulin pens and needles need to be considered together. Subject to our normal evaluation of individual brands, we would consider making pens and needles prescribable, as an alternative to syringes, if this could be done without additional cost. Discussions with suppliers are currently in progress.

  Health Authorities (Blacklisting)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning blacklisting by health authorities in respect of applicants for jobs at other health authorities; and what guidance is issued to health authority officials in respect of such practices.
  155
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No such representations have been received. Health authorities are well aware that no boycott of staff should take place.

  Surrey GP Formulary
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money was spent on the production and distribution of the Surrey family health services authority's "General Practice Formulary 1990"; and whether the authority plans to monitor its use by NHS doctors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The production and distribution of Surrey FHSA's "General Practice Formulary 1990" cost around £19,000. The FHSA plans to monitor the use and effectiveness of the formulary through visits and inquiries by the medical adviser and feedback to the formulary committee which is keeping the document under review.

  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to monitor the use and effectiveness of the general practitioners' formulary produced and distributed by the Surrey family health services authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Family health services authorities should encourage voluntary formulary development and use. Where, like Surrey, FHSAs provide GPs locally with a core formulary it is their responsibility to monitor its use and effectiveness.

  Pharmaceutical Products
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his assessment of the likely effects of health authorities wholesaling pharmaceutical products to family health services authority contractors.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are currently considering whether to issue guidance to health authorities.

  Health Authorities (Deficits)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district health authorities have underlying deficits in 1990–91; and which will not have cleared these by the start of 1991–92.

  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate, on the basis of figures presently available to him, the district health authorities likely to run into deficit at the end of the present financial year; and if he will give in each case his estimate of that deficit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 December 1990]: An underlying deficit is a measure of the extent to which health authorities have been incurring recurrent expenditure in excess of their recurrent income. This represents bad financial management and has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee of the House. In the planning guidance for 1990–91 issued in July 1989 health authorities were advised to eliminate such imbalances. As a result, the number of districts in deficit has fallen from 122 in 1989–90 to an end-of-September estimate of 51 for 1990–91. The districts forecasting deficits together with an estimate of the deficit at that date are set out in the table.
  156
  All of these are taking action in 1990–91 to tackle their problems. It is not yet possible to reach a definite view, but we believe that nearly all will have cleared deficits by the start of 1991–92. This is a major achievement and means that nearly all districts will enter 1991–92 on a sound financial basis which will enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities which the reforms to the NHS offer to improve the health of their residents.

  DISTRICTS IN DEFICIT BY REGIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Northern

  Hartlepool (£0·6 million)

  North Tees (£0·7 million)

  Darlington (£0·3 million)

  Yorkshire

  Hull (£0·1 million)

  Scunthorpe (£0·5 million)

  Leeds Eastern (£0·7 million)

  Leeds Western (£1·5 million)

  Pontefract (£0·2 million)

  Airedale (£0·4 million)

  East Anglian

  Peterborough (£0·1 million)

  West Suffolk (£0·5 million)

  East Suffolk (£0·6 million)

  Norwich (£1·2 million)

  North West Thames

  North West Hertfordshire (£0·7 million)

  Ealing (£0·2 million)

  Parkside (£1·7 million)

  North East Thames

  Basildon and Thurrock (£1·3 million)

  North East Essex (£0·6 million)

  West Essex (£1·5 million)

  Bloomsbury (£1·7 million)

  City and Hackney (£1·2 million)

  Waltham Forest (£0·8 million)

  South East Thames

  Brighton (£0·7 million)

  South East Kent (£0·3 million)

  Dartford (£0·1 million)

  Maidstone (£0·7 million)

  Medway (£0·8 million)

  Tunbridge Wells (£1·0 million)

  Bexley (£0·6 million)

  Bromley (£0·1 million)

  West Lambeth (£3·1 million)

  Camberwell (£2·3 million)

  Lewisham and North Southwark (£3·6 million)

  South West Thames

  West Surrey and North East Hants (£0·2 million)

  East Surrey (£2·3 million)

  Oxford

  East Berkshire (£0·7 million)

  West Berkshire (£0·3 million)

  Aylesbury Vale (£0·6 million)

  Wycombe (£0·1 million)

  Oxfordshire (£0·6 million)

  West Midlands

  Worcester (£0·3 million)

  Shropshire (£1·2 million)

  Central Birmingham (£0·7 million)

  South Birmingham (£1·1 million)

  West Birmingham (£0·4 million)

  Sandwell (£0·1 million)

  Mersey

  Chester (£0·2 million)

  Halton (£0·1 million)

  Liverpool (£0·7 million)

  North Western

  Burnley (£0·4 million)

  Trafford (£0·1 million)

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

Sunday Trading: Circular to Justices Clerks
Lord. Boyd-Carpenter Lord. Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that an organisation describing itself as "Keep Sunday Special" has been circularising clerks to justices with a document embodying that organisation's view of the state of the law on Sunday trading; and whether this attempt to influence the advice given by their clerks to benches of justices is in accordance with proper legal procedures and the proper administration of justice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I have no doubt that the clerks to the justices can be relied upon to deal in the appropriate way with all the correspondence which they receive.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, without speculating as to what my noble friend means by "the appropriate way", does he not take the view that for clerks to justices to be approached by an organisation behind the backs of its opponents is a rather tedious and perhaps a not very well behaved process? Would it not be better to leave clerks to justices alone? Does my noble friend's Answer also cover similar approaches to judges?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend asks whether it would not be better to leave people alone. The sane argument might be produced to those who write to Ministers and to those who try to make political points to Ministers about subjects over which they have no control. Clerks are perfectly entitled to receive letters and people are entitled to write to clerks. It is for the clerks to conduct themselves in the most a appropriate way. I have no doubt that they will do so.
Lord Monson: My Lords, given the many changes in policy over the past fortnight, can the noble Earl assure the House that the wishes of a small, vocal fundamentalist minority will no longer be allowed to prevail over the freedoms of the majority in England and Wales?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is, if I may use a colloquialism, an old chestnut. Many people have strong views about the opening of shops on Sunday. Until those people who have loaded interests can come to some form of accommodation it is unlikely that the Government will introduce measures into Parliament. The last time they did so Parliament refused to accept them. I can only advise my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to get hold of his
724
opponents, as he calls them, and discuss with them ways of getting round the problem. It is almost an abuse of parliamentary time if the Government produce proposals which are thrown out by another place.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is very unfair to law abiding shops when some shops break the law by opening on Sunday? Perhaps the Minister can say what point the Government have reached in their consultations with retail workers and their representatives, shop proprietors and the consumer bodies to find some way of bringing up to date the Shops Act 1950.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government are entirely content to have conversations with anyone who has a loaded interest in this matter. It is up to local authorities to make such prosecutions as they consider necessary. The law cannot be altered until agreement is reached in both Houses to alter the law. My experience at the moment is that that has not been obtainable.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that abuses of parliamentary time are not altogether that infrequent?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be so but it would not be for me to say which was an abuse.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, should not all noble Lords take the view of The Times and other newspapers that what is important at the present time is that we should all condemn the breaking of the law by whomsoever and in whatsoever context?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the law is there to be obeyed. It should be obeyed by all law abiding citizens.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us how the authorities responsible decide whom they should prosecute? All over Westminster on a Sunday one can buy anything but the authorities prosecuted Hamleys. Who makes the decision?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is for the local authorities to decide whom they should prosecute.

Inflation: Bank of England's Role
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering giving a more important role to the Bank of England in fighting inflation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government and the Bank are firmly committed to the objective of getting inflation down. We have no plans to change the Bank's role.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a strong case for giving greater authority to a body which is independent of the political cycle in fighting inflation and stabilising the currency, always subject to the ultimate control of Parliament? Furthermore, in the light of the negotiations now going on in the European

725
Community in which central banks will clearly be playing a greater role, should we not be looking at the structure of the Bank of England in anticipation of those developments?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not agree with either of the noble Lord's points. It is the Government's task to get inflation down. We are firmly committed to that and we are fully supported by the Bank. A change in the Bank's status either on a national level or within the European framework would add nothing further.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as economics seems to be such an inexact science, is there not some advantage in both the Treasury and the Bank of England having the benefit of being able to consult each other as they frequently do under the present system?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The truth of that has been shown by the success which the Treasury and the Bank of England have had over the past few years.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, with or without a change in the role of the Bank of England, can the Minister confirm what his right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently said; namely, that there is no intention to cut interest rates while the pound is weak inside the exchange rate mechanism? If that is true, does it also mean that there would be no intention of allowing the pound to fall in order to cut interest rates, even if the length and depth of the recession clearly required it?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is a very good question, but unfortunately it has very little to do with the Question on the Order Paper, which deals with the role of the Bank of England.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the ultimate responsibility for managing the economy must rest with the Government? Does he further agree that this could be improved by sharing that responsibility between two individuals—namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England—one of whom is not elected?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I agree. As I said earlier, the current method of control through a directly elected government has worked well.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever success the Government have had in tackling inflation with the co-operation of the Bank of England, that does not compare with the success the West German Government had when they were assisted by an independent central bank?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is very difficult to make international comparisons. It is a well-known fact that different countries have different ways of controlling their central banks. Some banks are fully independent and successful, while others are not fully independent and not so successful. We have developed our way over a number of years and it has worked reasonably well.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is not the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street the grandmother of all central banks and might she not therefore have her status returned to her by denationalisation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is where I bow down to age and experience. I believe that the noble Earl probably knows more about grandmothers than I do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the noble Lord see the television broadcast on Sunday last when the Governor of the Bank of England was interviewed by Mary Goldring? During that interview he said that he had a preference for being governed by an independent central bank sitting somewhere in Europe, rather than being controlled by politicians sitting in Parliament. Will the Government repudiate that and inform the Governor of the Bank of England that it is not their policy to denationalise the Bank of England?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the Governor of the Bank of England is well aware of the Government's policy on the issue.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the text of the Bank of England Act 1946, will the Government consider taking steps to prevent officials of the Bank of England, including the Governor, from giving their views on highly controversial political matters which ought not to be their prime concern?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, any changes to the Bank of England Act would have to be approved by Parliament. However, there is nothing to stop the Governor of the Bank discussing various issues with a variety of people, not least members of the committees of this House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the Question refers to,
"giving a more important role to the Bank of England".
I understood the noble Lord to say that the Government have no intention of giving a more important role to the Bank of England. However, for the sake of clarification, can he at least tell the House what has been the role of the Bank in recent years as regards fighting inflation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I should draw the noble Lord's attention to the supplementary question put by my noble friend Lord Renton. He said that detailed discussions took place between the Treasury and the Bank of England in order to decide what monetary policy should be in the long term.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. I did not understand the question put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because he made the great error of referring to economics as an inexact science, which left me completely bewildered. However, am I to understand that the Government view the Bank of England as having solely a secret advisory role and no more role than advising the Treasury; in other words, that it has no independent role and should have no independent role in their view?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government maintain that the current role of the Bank of England is one that works extremely well. We have no plans to change that role.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Peston, by his remarks mean that economics is not inexact or that it is not a science?

Prison Building Programme
2.50 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to revise their programme for building new prisons in view of a continuing fall in the prison population and in the light of the provisions for restricting the use of custody in the Criminal Justice Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, plans for three new prisons have been dropped. The new prison building programme now comprises of 13 prisons, all of which are under construction. Those are expected to be sufficient to meet the likely needs as now forecast.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that his honourable friend Mr. John Patten, addressing the All-Party Penal Affairs Group on 19th June, said that the prison population had dropped by about 3,000 or 4,000 in the previous year and that he expected that trend to continue over the next four or five years? In view of the succession of highly censorious reports from chief inspectors, culminating in the most recent report by Judge Tumim on the deplorable state of most of our urban local prisons, in anticipation of the report of Lord Justice Woolf, and in view of some of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, is there not a powerful case for freezing, or at least a further scaling down, of present plans to build more prisons outside urban areas and to give the highest priority to improving conditions in our local urban prisons with a view, in particular, to ending by a firm and early date the degrading practice of slopping out?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asks a number of questions. The projected prison population for 1998 has dropped from the expected 62,600 to 56,700. He asked whether it would not be better to stop work on the new prisons. All the new prisons are under construction. The point about new prisons is that they will not just provide better places but will be capable of replacing older prisons. We shall be spending about £162 million in 1991–92 on the existing estate and £300 million on new prisons. A great deal is being done in the prison world to meet the criticisms that have been levelled.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the prospect of falling numbers in the prison population will provide an opportunity to decant prisoners from wings of urban local prisons and to refurbish them? Can he confirm the estimate that I have received, that the expenditure of £30 million over seven years would end the slopping out practice to the great improvement of our prison system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we all want to end slopping out as soon as possible. A great deal of work is being done to encourage that result. My noble friend asked whether £30 million over seven years was an accurate figure. Integral sanitation is in many cases installed as part of a major refurbishment of wings, and it is not possible to disentangle the cost of providing integral sanitation from total expenditure. We are steadily increasing the resources available. The amounts spent on installing simple systems of integral sanitation will rise from £4 million this year to £9.5 million in 1991–92.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, can the Minister give me any information about the provision of new open prisons? Are any open prisons included in the building plans, or are there plans to use existing buildings for open prison, which is a possibility?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point. I do not have the figures.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, will my noble friend close some of the old prisons when the new ones are in use?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be possible. The important point it to get the new buildings into use. When they are in like it will be possible to forecast likely requirements for the old prisons.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that mental hospitals are being closed at an alarming rate; that, for example, Hellingly Hospital in Sussex, which has 1,000 patients, is being closed, and that it is strongly rumoured that a prison will take its place? Do we not have our priorities all wrong if we close mental hospitals and build prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we had a discussion on this topic the Other day. I know that the noble Earl is worried about mental hospitals. It would be wrong were mentally disturbed prisoners to end up in prison if a mental hospital is the right place for them. The Government are addressing that matter.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the money saved by ceasing to build the new prisons should be spent on getting remand prisoners out of the prisons, and stopping the scandal, which was pointed out 10 years ago in a debate initiated from these Benches, which has been described by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in precisely the same terms after a whole decade as being unacceptable and intolerable?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the money made available for new prisons was made available on the forecast of the likely requirements for new prisons. The fact that that forecast has been revised means that those new prisons will not now be made available. At the same time, a great deal of work is being done to modernise existing prisons and to update remand prisons.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in a previous answer today was the Minister giving an undertaking that there would be no diminution in the funds being made available for the upgrading of terrible prisons such as Walton in Liverpool and Armley in Leeds? Any diminution in the resources needed to correct

729
conditions there would be sad, in view of the conditions suffered by prisoners, including remand prisoners who should not be there.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, nothing I said in my replies should have indicated that there would be a diminution of funds to those prisons.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is 20 times cheaper to supervise an offender in the community than to send him to prison? Does he agree that the focus should be on providing non-custodial sentences rather than putting people into prison?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am delighted to say that the noble Baroness is at one with the Government on that point. I shall look forward to seeing her come onto these Benches as a result. She knows well that the whole onus of the Criminal Justice Bill is to encourage the punishment of offenders within the community; but where they cannot be punished within the community, and where the community has a right to see that those people are detained in custody, it is correct that that custody should be acceptable and proper.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the Minister accept that part of the purpose of my Question was to draw a distinction between the building of new prisons outside towns and the crying need to improve existing local prisons in urban areas; and that the priority should be to improve those prisons which do not serve the same purpose as those outside the towns?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's distinction. All that I was trying to tell him was that the work on the prison building programme by the Government is designed to try to improve existing prisons and to create new prisons where possible. When it is necessary to draw a distinction between urban prisons and other prisons, we do our best to ensure that both receive a fair crack of the whip.

The Gulf: Casualty Contingency Plans
2.58 p.m.
Lord Smith Lord Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
With the shortage of in-patient beds in our hospitals, what arrangements they have made to admit and treat casualties evacuated to this country if there is a war in the Gulf.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in consultation with the relevant government departments, health authorities have reviewed their existing contingency plans for NHS treatment of military casualties in the event of hostilities breaking out in the Gulf. Detailed guidance on the reception and treatment of casualties contains sensitive information which it would not be appropriate to make public; but the guidance has gone out to the relevant individuals in the health regions, and contingency planning will be taken forward as necessary.
Lord Smith: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that many consultants are perturbed about the NHS being able to cope adequately with a rush of casualties, especially given the call up of medical reservists? Is she aware that some consultants, largely involved with the occupancy of beds in private hospitals, feel strongly that those beds should be available in an emergency? Have the Government any plans to urge private hospitals actively to support the National Health Service by accepting casualties?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the purpose of the National Health Service contingency plan is to treat United Kingdom armed forces casualties evacuated from the Gulf once the Ministry of Defence hospitals in England are full and up to that point to meet the demand for any specialist facilities and treatment which the defence medical services cannot provide. So far as I am aware, there has been no suggestion to date that the Ministry of Defence would use private hospitals.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that while nearly every region has waiting lists, in some regions the situation is worse than in others? Does she agree that they ought to be identified and that a system of priority should be worked out by the Government to try to relieve areas with waiting lists and primarily those with chronic waiting lists?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reception of casualties would obviously affect the National Health Service waiting lists. We are considering how best to recover the situation, should it become necessary, but we all most earnestly hope that it will not. What will need to be done depends on the number of casualties and how long they require to be treated. In a sense, this is an extension of the usual difficult area where decisions must be made on clinical priorities, sometimes at short notice, where emergency admissions are involved.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if the recommendations of the Audit Commission and the Royal College of Physicians for a much wider use of one-day surgery were carried out, waiting lists could instantly be cut by 300,000?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel that we are straying into different territory. I can tell the noble Lord that we make every use of one-day surgery. The results are seen in the faster and greater turnover of numbers in day surgery as well as in patient care.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there is obvious uncertainty about what might happen. Some prophesy that it would all be over in 24 hours; others say that there might be a six-month battle. The committee under the presidency of Sir Raymond Hoffenberg has postulated as many as 200,000 UK casualties. May I have an assurance that the Government base their planning on the worst case scenario so that we are able to cope? Further, may I have an assurance that adequate ambulance planes will be provided to bring patients back from the Gulf if, tragically, that is necessary?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have asked the National Health Service to base its Gulf contingency planning on the arrangements for dealing with major civil incidents such as rail or airliner crashes. Within that framework, obviously individual regions are responsible for their detailed arrangements which would include ambulance services. I can tell the noble Lord that dispersal is the name of the game; he will know exactly what I mean.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Baroness answer my specific question? Are the Government making preparations on the worst scenario basis rather than simply hoping for the best?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I hesitate to say on a worst scenario basis; they are making the best possible plans.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a parliamentary delegation visited the Gulf recently? It had the unusual experience of meeting British doctors, surgeons and other medical staff who were desperately looking for patients on whom to practise their skills. May we have an assurance that the Ministry of Defence will ensure that medical reservists go to the Gulf as soon as they are needed but that they will not be taken off work here until that need is imminent?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I was not aware of the noble Lord's recent visit to the Gulf. I am glad that he was in a position to meet some of our medical reservists and to know that they are ready for action. Of course, contingency planning is made on the basis that it will be used as and when necessary and that there should be no unnecessary rundown in anticipation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House what provision is being made in the Gulf? How many beds are available for casualties there? Will she further tell the House what facilities are available under Ministry of Defence control in the United Kingdom so that we can be apprised of the size of the problem?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, because of the sensitivity of the information, I am not in a position to inform the noble Lord of the detailed figures. I can reassure him and all of your Lordships that we are making as adequate provision as possible in all the circumstances.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council in Rome.

London Docklands Railway Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Scottish Natural Heritage]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and access to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am aware that it may not seem appropriate to raise this matter again at this stage of the Bill. However, the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in relation to the insertion of the reference to access in Clause 1(1) were less than satisfactory in my opinion. The words "access" and "enjoyment" are not synonymous. One may wish to use a right of way for the purpose of access with no element of enjoyment involved. If it is said that "enjoyment" subsumes "access" it would introduce a useful clarity into a crucial debate on whether the Bill refers explicitly to access. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that access, getting to a place for enjoyment, may be anything but enjoyable in itself. This is a small amendment but it would clarify the point. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, noble Lords will know how important we consider access to be as an aim of SNH. We expect to build on and develop the work done in this area over the years by the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Access is an important part of SNH's general aim of facilitating the enjoyment of the natural heritage.
As I said in Committee, however, it would not be proper to single it out over other aspects of enjoyment. When we discussed the issue in Committee, I gave a commitment to table amendments to extend to SNH the access powers contained in Part II of the 1967 Act. As your Lordships will have seen from the Marshalled List, I have fulfilled that commitment. Therefore, I can see no need for this amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we shall come to another long Government amendment on this matter a little later. I do not think we shall get any further with this matter at this stage. It may be rather a fine point, but I believe the amendment should have been accepted. However, obviously that will not be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, after ("heritage") insert ("and resources").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that "heritage" is too narrow a term and has implications only of cultural and aesthetic values. The whole thrust of the report Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead was to widen the agenda for conservation beyond the narrow approach based on interest and aesthetic considerations. It clearly sets the Government's objectives within the terms of the world conservation strategy which seeks to tackle the wider issue of natural resource use. The report reaffirms,
"the government's commitment to positive action to protect the environment and promote the sustainable management of natural resources".
That matter clearly goes well beyond the protection of heritage to include natural resources in general. That must be reflected in the statement of Scottish Natural Heritage's general aims and purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this amendment seeks to relate the aims and purposes of SNH to something described as the natural resources of Scotland, which is apparently viewed by noble Lords opposite as somehow different from the natural heritage of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made it clear that he felt there was a difference between natural resources and natural heritage. However, as defined in Clause 1(3) the natural heritage includes flora, fauna, geological and physiographical features. I do not consider that the explanation that the noble Lord offered for including the term "resources" in the Bill adds anything to the scope of Clause 1. I suspect that it would serve to raise confusion on the meaning of "natural heritage" in other parts of the Bill. I do not wish to detract from what the noble Lord has said, but I believe that the scope of Clause 1 covers all the necessary aspects. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, again I believe this is a fine point. I should have thought that the inclusion of the word "resources" would have benefited people's understanding of the Bill. However, in view of the Minister's explanation and the fact that the Bill has a long way to go in another place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("have regard to the desirability of securing") and insert ("take all practicable steps to ensure").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we believe that the words proposed in Amendment No. 4 reflect far more accurately than the words in the Bill the strength of commitment which Government Ministers have consistently expressed in spoken and written form during the past 18 months. The first six pages of Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead contain no fewer than 16 references to sustainability. No
734
reader could fail to gain the strongest impression that the document implies much more than the concept conveyed in the words,
"have regard to the desirability of securing".
The duty in the Bill must therefore be stronger than it is at present. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said he hoped to find a middle way between what the Bill proposes and what is contained in these amendments. I do not believe that that has happened in this case. I regret therefore that we are in danger of repeating the same arguments. I am obliged to reiterate that the Government do not consider this amendment to be realistic. It would not be practical to encourage unlimited interference by SNH in the activities of others. In the long run that would be very likely to prove inefficient and ineffective. SNH will of course do all that it reasonably can to seek to ensure that the work it undertakes at its own hand is done in a sustainable way. It will persuade others to do likewise. The Bill provides for that. I do not consider the amendment would serve the purposes which the noble Lord hopes to achieve. It could cause confusion rather than produce effective solutions.
We thought carefully about the wording in the Bill when we included the words,
"have regard to the desirability of securing".
We felt that those words implied the right kind of duty rather than the stricter duty implied in the words,
"take all practicable steps to ensure".
I realise that one could argue about this matter for ever. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will accept my assurance that we have looked at this matter with extreme care. We believe we have produced the right form of words. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister said that this measure was a repetition of an amendment proposed at an earlier stage. I had hoped to obtain fresh words for the amendment but with my limited resources that is difficult. I am glad that the Minister, with his vast resources, was able to reconsider this matter. I am sure that he has reconsidered the matter honestly. If he cannot find words that cover exactly what I and my advisers were attempting to convey, I doubt whether I can at this late stage. The Bill, however, will pass to another place, where perhaps more resources can be devoted to the wording and more time will be available to debate such matters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 15, after ("undertaken") insert ("overall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to persuade the Government to take a wider view. The aim is to ensure that some developments which may cause some loss of heritage occur at some locations but are balanced by no development at other

735
locations. The concept of sustainability should be applied strategically to the whole of Scotland and to major areas. It should not be applied on a small site-by-site basis which could, cumulatively, be quite destructive to the Government's aims in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in that I have at my disposal the vast resources of the Scottish Office which enables me to counter the arguments that the noble Lord proposes. However, I should point out that although the noble Lord's resources may be meagre, his arguments are effective and he has made us think again on many occasions in Committee and now again on Report.
This amendment presents me with some problems. I am rot entirely sure how the amendment would operate. I consider that the intention of the amendment is to weaken the idea of sustainability by requiring that anything done should be,
"undertaken overall in a manner which is sustainable".
It implies that some activities which were not sustainable could be supported. This is not the Government's intention. I am sure it is not the noble Lord's intention, either.
As I explained in Committee, sustainability is an important and increasingly understood concept, and one which is fundamental to the Government's approach to environmental matters. We do not wish to see it weakened. An activity may either be considered sustainable or not sustainable; and the addition of the word "overall" will make it more difficult for SNH to interpret its aim under Clause 1(1).
As I said in Committee, the Government feel that the sustainability duty should be applied to individual activities and more generally to support schemes and policies. It is not a question, as this amendment implies, of one or the other. It is, of course, the case that there will be variations in the extent to which particular activities which are otherwise entirely necessary or desirable can be carried out in a sustainable way. That does not make sustainability any less desirable as an objective.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, followed that explanation. I felt myself getting lost half way through, and my thoughts may have become rather confused. We are dealing here with sustainability in given areas. If we include the word "overall" we shall diminish sustainability rather than enhancing it.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, my noble friend has convinced me that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was right and that my noble friend is wrong. The word "overall" means overall. It does not diminish sustainability, it extends it to the whole area. I should have thought that that was desirable.
As it stands the Bill provides that if one can say that some part of what is done in relation to the natural heritage is sustainable then one fulfils the purpose of the Bill. That is exactly what we do not want. We want the major aspects of a development to be sustainable overall and to extend to the whole area of the development. I should have thought that the
736
amendment would be a valuable addition to the Bill in maintaining the overall development—whether in forestry, land or some other development. In that sense it is a balanced, overall development, which I should have thought would be the wish of Parliament.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I do not like to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. However, it appears to me that the phrase:
"is undertaken overall in a manner which is sustainable"
is hardly English. It is certainly not comprehensible to me. I should have thought that leaving out the word "overall" would be of great benefit to the simplicity of the clause.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has such a reputation in the House for clear thinking, gained over many years, that after the Minister's explanation I was very glad to hear his explanation, which was made on the hoof as it were. I think that we are on to something here. I agree that the wording may not be quite right; and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has a point in that the English is not as good as it might be.
We are concerned that developments should be considered from an overall point of view, and I hope that the Minister will think again and agree to take the matter back between now and Third Reading.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, because it is Report stage, perhaps I may add one or two points. May I say to my noble friend that the purpose in writing the Bill in this way is to make sure that conservation and sustainability are the primary functions. Naturally, in carrying out its functions Scottish Natural Heritage will have a duty to look at other aspects of the development of forestry, agriculture and other areas in relation to that overriding duty. In the Government's view adding the word "overall" would weaken that duty. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, admitted that there may be some aspects which are not sustainable.
I am sorry that I cannot give any undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on this issue. We have gone through it at some length. I hope that he will read what I have said before he decides what to do at Third Reading.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that we shall return to the concept of sustainability fairly soon. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert:
("(4) For the purpose of this Act, "sustainable" shall mean "consistent with the principles of preserving biological diversity, protecting major natural ecosystems, and using natural resources only in such a way as protects them from long term degradation or depletion".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I understand it, this is the first time that the word "sustainable" appears in United Kingdom legislation. After extensive promotion of the concept in the World

737
Conservation Strategy and the Brundtland Report, the Government have adopted the concept in countless references in government publications and Ministers' speeches. It must be clearly defined in the Bill, in the terms in which it is used in the Brundtland document, in the report Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead and the environment White Paper This Common Inheritance. The Minister will be aware of that helpful definition. I hope that he will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Nichol: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on this point. When we discussed the definition of "sustainable" at Committee stage it was clear that a number of us needed clarification as to what the word meant. It would be very helpful if the definition was included in the Bill at an early stage. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I congratulate noble Lords opposite on this attempt to define the word "sustainable". I welcome the approach. There is no doubt that the concept of sustainability is essential to the setting up and operation of Scottish Natural Heritage. I recognise that the definition emanates from the World Conservation Strategy and that it was, as the noble Lord said, set out in our consultation paper. I have no difficulty with that.
Where I have difficulty is with the idea that it is desirable to enshrine any definition of sustainability into statute. On the one hand there is no disagreement on what "sustainable" means in a natural heritage context. The key aspects are related to the nature, range and intensity of usage, and it is those aspects which Scottish Natural Heritage will keep in mind. The more agreement there is on the meaning of the concept the less the need for a statutory definition.
There is a further general disadvantage to statutory definitions. By including the definition in statute the noble Lords who propose the amendment could unwittingly restrict SNH. I believe that it would be better to leave "sustainable" undefined. Circumstances can change and while the definition may seem satisfactory to us now it may not always be so.
It is in that spirit that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will appreciate that we are not opposed to what he said but that we do not want to impose a straitjacket on SNH through a definition of sustainability.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, having just listened to a debate in another connection on that marvellously vague phrase:
"such force as may be deemed necessary",
which no one has ever been able to define, it seems to me that here again we shall create a field day for the lawyers if "sustainable" is not clearly defined in the Bill. In every Act of Parliament there are certain phrases for which everyone has a different interpretation, leading to endless litigation. Surely, in a Bill of
738
this character, it cannot be beyond the wit of the civil servants and Ministers to deal with this very serious issue.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lady Phillips and Lady Nichol. The Minister suggested that the world changes. Of course it does, but I should have thought that it would be easier, and—as my noble friend Lady Phillips said, we shall provide a field day for the lawyers if we do not include the definition—perhaps it would take some work away from the lawyers and make their pleadings somewhat shorter if such a definition were included.
I am sorry that the Minister, while agreeing with the principle, finds it impossible to support the amendment. I am sure that this will be a matter which will be discussed again at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 23, after ("persons") insert:
("() the power to guarantee obligations arising out of loans or otherwise incurred by any person receiving assistance from SNH;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, argued that Highlands and Islands Enterprise does not have the power to guarantee obligations and therefore no requirement could be seen for Scottish Natural Heritage to have such a power.
I think that on reflection the Minister is bound to agree that the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise will have such a power. It is defined in Section 8(1)(c) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990. Under Section 13(1) of that Act, Scottish Enterprise is restricted to using the power only to provide financial assistance to persons carrying on any commercial activity. There appears to be no restriction upon Highlands and Islands Enterprise.
However, the point is that Scottish Natural Heritage, as a body empowered to foster environmental enterprise and support or promote private sector involvement in services or activities to do with the care or enhancement of the natural heritage, should have at least the same portfolio powers as the enterprise agency. The gist of the argument is contained in that. I shall not go to any great length to explain it further, unless the HIE and Scottish Enterprise do not have the powers which I am told the Minister wrongly said they do not have. I hope that the amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, moved an identical amendment in Committee. I said then that I did not see the need for SNH to have such a power, and I stand by that statement. SNH is not an economic development organisation. Noble Lords will surely agree that it is the role of private sector financial institutions to

739
guarantee loans and mortgages. It would be wholly wrong to transfer the contingent liabilities to the public purse by accepting this amendment.
As tae noble Lord himself pointed out, I suggested in Committee that equivalent powers did not exist for Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I am now advised that I was wrong and that that body does have such powers, in addition to Scottish Enterprise. Nevertheless, I do not think that there is any logical parallel between those two bodies charged with furthering economic development and Scottish Natural Heritage. In this area of operation, HIE and SE might expect to make some use of such powers in particular circumstances with a long-term aim of securing important jobs and investment for a particular area. Such guarantees would be given subject to strict financial guidelines to limit any liabilities to an absolute minimum. Furthermore, both Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise have the knowledge and experience of operating such projects developed over several years by their predecessor bodies, HIDB and SDA.
It would be wrong to place additional responsibility of that nature on SNH by asking it to make decisions on such matters which are well beyond its remit. SNH will have significant opportunities to make grants and loans to the private sector and the Government see that as an appropriate and sufficient extension of its powers in that area.
I hope that that explanation puts at rest the mind of the no Lord, Lord Carmichael and that he will agree that it is better for SNH to look after its environmental duties and allow HIE and SE to look after their economic development duties.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am glad that I was able to help the Minister to clear up a difficult point. I am sorry that I did not perhaps speak for as long as I could have done on the ability to expand economically and commercially. I accept that guaranteeing obligations could put a considerable burden on the public purse if it were not well controlled. However, I am sure that there is scope for the Treasury to come to an agreement with SNH as to the level of guarantee that might be appropriate under a range of circumstances.
This matter will have to be pursued, although I can see the dangers to which the Minister pointed where a body is not quite so commercially oriented as the other two which have such powers. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert ("and
(h) the provision of advice and guidance to any government department or public body on the preparation of an environmental strategy which sets out how that department or body will have regard to the desirability of securing that anything done in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner which is sustainable, and assisting in periodic review of the implementation and effectiveness of such a strategy.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment allows for Scottish Natural Heritage to tender advice to the Government or other public bodies concerned with the environment. Ministerial statements have made clear that the overriding concern of government is to secure a sustainable natural heritage and to ensure that when change occurs in the use of land or water resources it does not irretrievably damage the natural environment and imperil the heritage that we wish to hand on to future generations. We believe, and the Minister also, I think, feels that Scottish Natural Heritage is a significant step in that direction. But it is illusory to imagine that SNH is the only body to he concerned with Scotland's natural heritage. Indeed, much of the conservation versus development conflict in Scotland in recent times results from different bodies or agencies pursuing different objectives to their individual or mutual advantage.
Sustainability is dependent on fostering a common purpose. It is a helpful suggestion that Scottish Natural Heritage should be available to give advice to the Government and to public bodies in respect of any developments that will affect the environment of Scotland. In that spirit I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there appear to be two elements to the amendment. The Government do not see the need for statutory provision for either of them. First, the amendment would give a specific function to SNH to provide advice and guidance on the preparation of an environmental strategy. We are certainly not against SNH providing advice to government departments and public bodies; indeed specific provision is made for it in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2(1). We do not, therefore, see the necessity for this further specific provision.
Secondly, by implication the amendment suggests that departments or bodies will prepare environmental strategies, and will periodically review their implementation and effectiveness, particularly focusing on securing activities that result in the natural heritage of Scotland being sustainable. I am pleased to see that the Opposition accept the Government's view that departments and government bodies should have such responsibilities. Obviously they have read and taken on board the proposals in our White Paper This Common Inheritance. For example, there is a nominated Minister in each department who is responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of that department's policies and spending programmes as well as for following up the relevant parts of the environment White Paper.
Furthermore, annual departmental reports can also set out the action that they have taken to follow up the White Paper and any other environmental initiatives which they are proposing. The Government have also set work in hand to produce guidelines for policy appraisal where there are significant implications for the environment in the work of government departments.
I hope that the noble Lord will believe me when I give him the assurance that the Government are

741
committed to a co-ordinated departmental strategy to deal with the environment. No doubt he will feel free to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert ("and
(h) the duty to keep under review all matters relating to the provision, development and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside and the need to secure access for the purposes of open air recreation, and to encourage, assist, or promote the implementation of any proposals with respect to the enjoyment of the countryside, being proposals which SNH consider to be suitable.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to avoid a certain amount of doubt that could arise. Along with mentioning explicit nature conservation functions, we believe that there should continue to be explicit reference to access and recreation. Without the amendment the Bill appears to fail in its attempt fully to bring together the work of both the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission for Scotland. The existing reference to enjoyment and amenity is insufficiently precise. If the amendment is accepted it will ensure that the functions of the Countryside Commission for Scotland as detailed in Section 3 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 are properly carried forward within the new agency. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the amendment seeks to retain the provisions of Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. We do not think that these provisions are necessary on the statute book in the degree of specificity which the amendment suggests. Indeed, I go further. The aims and purposes set out in Clause 1 could not be pursued, and the general advisory functions in Clause 2(1)(a) and (b) could not be undertaken by SNH without keeping under review all relevant matters which would include enjoyment of the natural heritage. Similarly, when undertaking its more specific powers—for instance, grant aid under Clause 8 and development projects or schemes under Clause 5—SNH would need to have a broad strategy to enable it to make decisions on individual cases and proposals.
We are quite satisfied that the general powers in Clause 2(1), in particular paragraphs (b), (c) and (g), will give Scottish Natural Heritage all the powers that it needs to achieve this. The amendments as drafted are unnecessary, as well as being backward looking in their terminology. They refer back to statutes which are well over 20 years old. We are trying to achieve a synthesis of the legislation. These amendments would perpetuate the language of the 1967 Act. In particular, the concept of designated countryside to which the amendment harks back is being abolished. I cannot therefore accept it.
742
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that we are trying to achieve a degree of flexibility. The amendment does not allow that. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I believe that we are all in favour of flexibility. However, there are some aspects in law that one wishes to pin down or one finds that one has not achieved what one had believed when the Bill was passed. The Minister gave a full and interesting explanation. I shall consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

European Council, 13th and 14th December
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the European Council in Rome on 13th and 14th December. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council in Rome on 13th and 14th December, which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
"The Council's conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House. After the Council itself I attended a formal joint opening session of the intergovernmental conferences on political union and on economic and monetary union. This was followed by a short working session of each conference attended respectively by my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These meetings were mainly formal and procedural. The conferences will start in earnest in January.
"Five main subjects were dealt with by the European Council: first, political union. On this, the Council reached agreement on a long list of items which are to be considered—and that is the operative word—at the intergovernmental conference on political union. The list includes Britain's proposals for closer co-operation on foreign and security y policy, better implementation of Community decisions, a role for national parliaments in the affairs of the Community, better financial accountability, and observance of the principle of subsidiarity. Other countries have also added items to the list. Some of them we welcome; others are less palatable.
"The key, so far as Britain is concerned, is that the issues have simply been put on the table for discussion. None is agreed. All are for consideration. The conclusions of the Council do not constrain or prejudge the intergovernmental

743
conference's decisions, which have to be reached by unanimity. One of our principal objectives in Rome was thus satisfactorily achieved.
"The second main item was assistance for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Community's aim is to support the economic reforms which President Gorbachev and the Soviet Government are introducing, and to help the Soviet Union make proper use of its own resources. We therefore agreed to make available technical assistance to particular sectors of the Soviet economy, and notably to food distribution. We also endorsed the aim of energy co-operation, in which Britain is particularly well placed to play a part.
"To meet the Soviet Union's short-term needs the Community will provide substantial food aid. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and stressed that there should be guarantees that the food actually reaches those for whom it is intended, and does not undermine attempts to make Soviet agriculture more responsive to the market. These points are reflected in the Council's conclusions.
"The Council also recognised the particular difficulties being experienced by Eastern European countries as they make the transition to democracy and a market economy, while coping simultaneously with sharp increases in oil prices and the change to hard currency trading. The Community will contribute, along with other Western countries and the international financial institutions, to meeting their financing requirements. It will also provide emergency aid to Bulgaria and Romania, in the form of food and medicines.
"Thirdly, the Council discussed the GATT negotiations. It called on all parties to show the necessary political will to reach a satisfactory agreement and asked the Commission as the Community's negotiator to be in touch with other participants in order to resolve remaining problems. This refers to agriculture in particular.
"We thus achieved another of our main objectives; namely, to ensure that heads of government dealt fully with the difficulties in the GATT negotiations and gave a strong signal of the Community's resolve to see a successful outcome. I hope other countries will show themselves no less willing to make progress.
"Fourthly, the Council dealt with the situation in the Gulf and agreed an admirably firm statement. This shows the Community as firmly committed as ever to ensuring Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of the legitimate government. The statement makes particular reference to Security Council Resolution 678 which envisages the possible use of force if attempts to resolve matters peacefully have not succeeded by 15th January.
"The Council's discussions made clear that the Twelve do not accept any linkage whatsoever
744
between Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait and progress on other Middle Eastern issues. Saddam Hussein must not gain from his aggression.
"Lastly, the Council welcomed the changes which President de Klerk has, with Mr. Mandela, brought about in South Africa. It also decided to lift with immediate effect the voluntary ban on new investment in South Africa. That is a step which Britain has been urging for many months. I know the decision will be most welcome to Members on this side of the House. The Community is committed to lift other restrictive measures as soon as the South African Government takes certain additional steps which it has already promised to do.
"I underline the importance of this move by the Community, which will encourage further reform and political progress in South Africa. I hope Europe's example will rapidly be followed by others.
"For the sake of completeness, Mr. Speaker, I should make two further points. First, the European Council reaffirmed its determination to complete the single market on time. Secondly, the Council did not discuss economic and monetary union on this occasion. But my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced that we shall very shortly table draft treaty amendments to give effect to Britain's proposals for a hard ecu and a European monetary fund.
"The Council was marked by a positive and co-operative spirit—despite some subsequent remarks—and by a willingness on the part of all member states to work for solutions which will enable us to go forward as Twelve. There is no doubt that there will be difficult discussions ahead in both the intergovernmental conferences. It would be foolish to deny that. But the Government's aim will be to work for agreements which are acceptable to this House and match both Britain's interests and those of Europe as a whole. We made a good start in Rome".
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. This second summit in Rome was both interesting and important. It is clear that the proceedings were conducted in a friendly atmosphere. To that extent it was an improvement on most recent summits. The big question is whether it gives promise of closer understanding and co-operation in the future. That is particularly important as the Government approach the January meetings of the two IGCs on EMU and political union.
I note the reference to political union, which is of the first importance, especially to the British Parliament. A number of key items are to be considered and they are on the table for discussion without prior agreement. Will the noble Lord confirm that major decisions—for example, the role of this

745
Parliament and other parliaments in Community affairs—will be fully debated in both Houses before a final conclusion is reached?
We welcome the general aim to support the efforts being made by President Gorbachev to find a stabilising economic policy in the Soviet Union. Can the noble Lord tell the House what contribution this country will make towards the wide-ranging assistance to be provided? Does he agree that we in this country have an efficient agricultural industry which could provide experts to advise and help the Soviet Union in its present grave predicament?
The noble Lord will be aware of the dismay and anxiety of all Members of this House about the breakdown of the GATT round. It does not appear that any agreement on the matter was reached in Rome. The Statement is sparse about the steps to be taken. When in the Statement the Prime Minister states that heads of government dealt fully with GATT, does he mean that conclusions were reached? Are any further meetings to be held to break the deadlock which appears to exist? The Statement does not refer to the deadlock but gives the impression that the difficulties are over. The noble Lord could help the House by confirming that immense difficulties have yet to be overcome.
We welcome the unity of the European Community governments on the Gulf crisis. I note that the initiative reportedly being taken to arranging a meeting between the Italian President of the European Community and Mr. Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, is not reported in the Statement. However, its importance is so great that it will be interesting to know whether there is any foundation for the report and, if so, whether there has been any response from Baghdad.
The Statement refers to EMU, which was not discussed in Rome. Are the Government still firmly against a single currency, however gradual the move towards it may be? Do the Government believe that the amendments that the Chancellor is now drafting to introduce a hard ecu and a European monetary fund are likely to be acceptable to the majority of EC countries?
Is the noble Lord aware that we must look carefully at the proposals for South Africa? We must ascertain whether sufficient progress has been made to justify the lifting of the ban on new investments referred to in the Statement. There must be some doubt about that matter at present and we shall need to debate it in the House in due course. I too hope that substantial reforms will be made soon. Furthermore, I hope that the conference will lead to more constructive debates which will not unduly upset M. Delors.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that one former President of the European Commission takes a more enthusiastic view of Mr. Major's performance in Rome than M. Delors appeared to take? I do not believe that Jacques Delors's comments should cause too much excitement; nor should they be used to treat
746
him as one of the ogres a former Foreign Secretary, in what now seems an age away, asked the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, not to create in Europe.
I listened to the President of the Commission on Sunday and was sympathetically struck, remembering vividly my experience in that respect. It is dangerous to undertake a spontaneous interview in a language in which one is not an absolute master. It is so easy to say too little or too much. I am doubtful about whether the hard ecu will run. I do not believe that it obviates the disadvantages that we suffer compared with Japan or the United States in having 11 different currencies in an increasingly closely integrated Community of twelve members. However, there is no reason why those issues should not be studied and argued about in the intergovernmental conference.
In view of past, recent experience it is understandable, however, that others may be suspicious that what Britain wants is not a constructive alternative solution but to see the whole enterprise run into the sand. Mr. Major has made considerable progress towards dissipating such suspicions. I believe that atmosphere is important. However, he still has some way to go and must move from atmosphere into substance. Nonetheless, I agree with the Statement that a good start was made in Rome and I greatly welcome that.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is right to say that the atmosphere in Rome was friendly, and there is a real prospect of success in the IGCs. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked whether in the context of the debates about political union the role of this Parliament will be debated. The answer must be yes. He also asked about the contribution that will be made by this country towards the assistance to be given to the Soviet Union. We consider that we are able to make a considerable contribution, particularly as regards technical assistance in the field of energy.
As regards the GATT round there can be no question of agreement being reached in Rome. Agreement depends on the agreement of parties who are not present in Rome. The Ministers at the Council in Rome instructed the Commission to be in touch with the other participants in order to make the greatest possible effort to procure agreement.
As the Statement made clear, the Council did not discuss economic and monetary union as such. However, my right honourable friend made clear that in due course the British Government will present their proposals for the hard ecu. We believe that an imposed single currency is not on. If the market-driven common currency approach is successful the hard ecu could in due course become a single currency.
I do not believe that anyone will deny that progress has been made in South Africa. That was recognised by the Council. It is hoped that progress will continue to be made as further important initiatives are taken by the South African Government.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his remarks. Certainly he gave a timely warning to us all about spontaneous interviews. I do not believe that one should take too seriously remarks attributed to

747
the President of the Commission because I repeat that the atmosphere at the council was extremely friendly and helpful. There is every reason to believe that the intergovernmental conferences which are now to begin in earnest will yield fruit. There is no reason why our proposals for the hard ecu should not receive a friendly and favourable reception from our partners in the Community.
4 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the delicate nature of the discussions which will shortly take place as a prelude to the intergovernmental conferences may provoke a considerable amount of political controversy as between the heads of member states and, indeed, within the member states themselves. When reflecting upon possible revisions to the treaty, will the Government consider tabling the appropriate amendment to Article 157 of the Treaty of Rome which lays down the standards of conduct expected from individual commissioners? Will he make it clear that remark s such as: "If we need to provoke a second political crisis, we will do so", are not acceptable? Nor is it acceptable for any member of the Commission to act in a partisan political campaign against proposals put for ward in good faith by any member state. Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will remember the provisions of Article 158 of the Treaty of Rome which provide for the renewal of individual commissioners' mandates which are not automatically given?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add to what I said a few moments ago. Perhaps it is not profitable to dwell for too long upon remarks made by individuals which may have been rather ill-considered. The point is that a shopping list was put forward by all the member states, a whole series of subjects was raised for discussion and now we must wait to see how those substantive discussions proceed.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on the very successful outcome of the Rome summit. Does my noble friend agree that the issues raised in a 30-page communiqué will take many months and possibly years to consider?
As regards the subsequent remarks which were referred to, perhaps we may note with some satisfaction that the President of the Commission is reported today to have said that his reference to a political crisis did not refer only to the United Kingdom but may have applied to other countries. Is it agreed that other countries may also be proposing amendments to the draft treaty?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend has been helpful in drawing attention to the most recent statement by the President of the Commission. I understand that nobody is expecting the discussions which are to take place in each of the intergovernmental conferences to last for less than most of next year. Any amendments to the treaty are not expected to be ratified by the member states until a year after that. Therefore, it will be a long process.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as a pro-European, is the Minister aware that I should want him to strongly assert that we are on the train to political and economic union within Europe? However, we reserve the right to apply the brakes if we believe that the train is travelling at ruinous or breakneck speed. Secondly, I do not wish the Leader of the House to be on the defensive regarding Delors. Is he aware that bungler Delors should be informed that his foolish outburst has united the anti-Europeans, much to the detriment of those who wish to see a united and co-operative attitude on the developments within the EC? Delors should be so informed. His spoken word cannot be unsaid.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not know whether the President of the Commission reads Hansard but I am quite sure that any expressions of opinion emerging from the press or this House will be drawn to his attention. The point about political union is that it is a process. At the council it was agreed that we should not define the final goal and the progress towards political union must respect fundamental national identities and institutions.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the spirit of that part of the Statement which lays down that any future discussions will take fully into account British as well as separate European interests was not completely reflected in the long interview which the governor of the Bank of England gave on Sunday? Will he give an assurance to this House that it is the spirit of the Statement and not the spirit which seemed to come from that interview given in his native tongue which will be the basis of any future action which we may take?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the long conclusions, a copy of which have now been placed in the Library of the House, bear careful examination. A shopping list was drawn up and no agreement was reached which could cause anxiety to my noble friend.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join in welcoming the improved atmosphere which, it has been noted, was apparent at this conference. I welcome also the assistance promised to the central and East European countries which have suffered and are suffering acutely from increased oil prices which gravely affect their advance towards political democracy.
That having been said, while I understand the need to secure guarantees that aid to Russia is delivered to those to whom it is intended, the problems of the USSR are problems of distribution rather than anything else. On the other hand, in offering emergency aid to Romania I believe that most stringent guarantees should be insisted upon to see that that aid is not absorbed by the present administration whose auspices are, to say the least of it, extremely dubious. There should be guarantees that that aid will be distributed to those who need it.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. It seems that there is no general food

749
shortage in the Soviet Union but there are acute distribution difficulties. We pressed successfully for a technical assistance package which will cover transport and distribution of foodstuffs. It is important to give short-term humanitarian help to the Soviet Union. There is no point in giving that help if it does not reach the people who need it.
I take the point made by the noble Lord about aid to Romania and Bulgaria which is emergency aid for food and medical help. I am sure that every possible step will be taken to see that that aid goes to the people whom it is intended to help.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Leader of the House aware that although of course we congratulate Mr. Major on a relatively quiet summit conference, we have become used to somewhat emollient statements about what has been agreed? Can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that they continue to have control of the currency, that they will not agree to an independent central bank and that they will ensure that vital decisions concerning monetary, economic and fiscal policy continue to be taken by Her Majesty's Government and Parliament?
Secondly, as regards Mr. Jacques Delors, who seems to be an insufferable autocrat who wishes no less than the sovietisation of Western Europe, people in this country are offended by a top European civil servant appearing to threaten this country if it does not do certain things and goes even further and threatens to take action to undermine and destabilise the position of the Prime Minister.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it is perhaps right that the House should take note of the helpful remarks made by my noble friend. Regarding monetary union, I was very careful in the remarks I made a short time ago. An imposed single currency is not on. If, having embarked on a common currency approach, that approach is successful, then in due course the hard ecu could become a single currency. That is the way we believe we should proceed.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps it might be as well to remind the House that we do not normally attack civil servants who cannot reply for themselves, particularly when they have been appointed by the head of this Government. In the case of Monsieur Delors I believe an explanation was given in today's press that he was not attacking the United Kingdom. Perhaps it would be better if we did not in this House, or any other House, attack a man attempting to do a job on behalf of the Community.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have never met the gentleman who has been referred to so often this afternoon. I am always hesitant in criticising someone I do not know.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in view of the oblique digs that have predictably been made in one or two quarters against the right honourable lady who was Prime Minister until a few weeks ago, perhaps I might ask the Leader of the House a question. Although the response, "No, no, no" may not always be the
750
appropriate one in regard to EC proposals—I believe however it was the appropriate response to the over-zealous proposals made a month ago—would the noble Lord agree that the question, "Why, why, why?" is not only appropriate but always essential? There is nothing to be said for change for the sake of change. Therefore, every single proposal emanating from Brussels should be examined with the proverbial toothcomb to see whether it is in the interests of the British people and accords with their culture and traditions.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I find it very difficult to disagree with the remarks of the noble Lord. We attach a great deal of importance to the principle of subsidiarity. Indeed, we were one of the first to suggest that that principle should be written into the treaty. It is certainly no wish of the British Government to see the Community taking a greater part in affairs which can be better dealt with by the individual governments of the Community.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend the Leader of the House say whether or not I am right in detecting from reports of what occurred in Rome a movement by the heads of some governments — notably the French Government—towards the view that the way to strengthen the Community and abolish democratic deficit is to strengthen the position of national governments and national parliaments? It is not to strengthen the role of the Commission. Is not that the conflict which underlies the problem referred to regarding the present president? Could not Hansard be graced to sum up the opinions of this House with three French words, alors, Delors, sors!
Lord Waddington: My Lords, a short time ago I too referred to a shopping list, and on the shopping list is the role of national parliaments. There certainly were some at the Council who believed we should not forget the important role that national parliaments can play in future developments.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, in reference to the paragraph regarding the Gulf crisis, whether he can confirm that the Statement sets out the Community's view that Security Council Resolution 678 permits military action but does not make it either mandatory or certain? I ask that question because this afternoon I heard the Prime Minister say that there will be military action after 15th January if there is no solution. I hope that that was a slip of the tongue. I should like the noble Lord to confirm whether that is the view of Her Majesty's Government and the Community.
On the same issue will the noble Lord advise the House whether there was any discussion in Rome concerning the strengthening and tightening of sanctions against Saddam Hussein? Military action will almost certainly destroy what is left of Kuwait and the Kuwaitis. Sanctions are already weakening Saddam Hussein's military forces. Was there any discussion on tightening them still further thus giving time to reduce the result of the withdrawal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can only invite the attention of the noble Lord to the declaration on the Gulf crisis, which is Annexe 1 to the presidency conclusions. It begins,
"The European Community and its member states remain firmly committed to full implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions. Complete Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait and the restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty and of its legitimate government remain the absolute conditions for a peaceful solution of the crisis".
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly stressed Her Majesty's Government's addiction to their route towards a common currency through the hard ecu. I hope that his talk of an imposed currency does not rule out supporting a negotiated path towards a single currency which is considered by industrialists in this country to be desirable.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I stated quite firmly the British Government's position. It is obvious that a single currency is not something one can impose on the Parliament of this country. However, I repeat that European monetary union was not discussed at the Council.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with respect the noble Lord did not answer my question. Perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat that section of the Statement—just the first sentence—regarding the Gulf crisis and reference to Security Council Resolution 678.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I believe I clearly answered the question. I would be wasting the time of the House if I repeated the answer.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
4.18 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert:
("(h) the power to convene meetings of the representatives of any interests where, in its opinion, discussions are needed to allow it to pursue its general aims and purposes as mentioned in section 1(1) above;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 is a probing amendment. Much play is made in Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead of the need for discussion and communication to deal with the conflicts which have beset the conservation development debate in recent years. In tabling the amendment I ask whether it is helpful to give Scottish Natural Heritage the power to convene meetings of representatives of any interests where in its opinion discussion is needed.
The flaw in the amendment is that it gives great power to Scottish Natural Heritage. Perhaps the Minister could suggest a word other than "power"; maybe "opportunity" or "ability". The power to summon all the other bodies together is somewhat draconian. That is a weakness of the amendment. I hope to discover from the Minister whether Scottish
752
Natural Heritage could be the organisation to pull the group together and perhaps reach a consensus. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I had hoped not to see the reappearance of this amendment. We discussed it at another stage and we remain opposed to it. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked me to elucidate more clearly why we do not wish to accept it, and I shall do so.
As I said previously, there is no need for a specific power for SNH in this regard. Its general power under Clause 2(1) (g) will allow it to convene this kind of meeting. It is an important power. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has accepted, the SNH will be keen to encourage partnerships with others and practically to seek to convene such meetings as are appropriate. There is no need to spell out such powers on the face of the Bill. To spell out each precise detail of SNH operations might imply that any other powers not included did not exist. That is why we have drafted Clause 2(1) (g) to cover all powers and to allow the SNH a greater degree of flexibility in its operations.
We discussed flexibility with Amendment No. 10 and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, agreed that it was necessary. It is in the light of that spirit of flexibility that I am keen not to accept the noble Lord's amendment and instead to rely on paragraph (g), which will allow the convening of such meetings.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am not as convinced as my noble friend. What is the problem here? There is to be a small body which will take decisions affecting man. It is extremely important that this measure should be implemented with the full accord of the people concerned. Therefore it is desirable to have meetings and to say what is proposed and what the effect will be. I think that my noble friend is missing the point in not encouraging the people who have the responsibility to get together with the people concerned in the area and say "We want to do this and we want you to understand what we are doing".
If the people on the spot understand their objections will probably diminish, which will make it easier for the SNH to do its work properly. I believe that this is a useful opportunity to show that throughout there is a readiness for agreement. The danger of this opposition is that some thickheaded chap will make himself a thorough nuisance and become unpopular throughout the country. The work of the organisation will then be more difficult. However, if people are called together and told what is proposed and the reason for it, those responsible will make themselves more popular. That is of great importance to the purpose of the Bill.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I entirely endorse what the Minister said. It seems clear beyond a peradventure that the activity described in the amendment: namely—
"the power to convene meetings of the representatives of any interests where, in its opinion, discussions are needed"—
is within the power conferred by Clause 2(1) (g),

753
"the power to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the discharge of its functions".
I say with all due respect to those who take an opposite view that it seems unarguable that the terms of this amendment are not already within paragraph (g).
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it appears that all those who have taken part in this debate, including the Minister, have the same aim; namely, that there should be an opportunity for a general discussion. The Minister said that the power is already in the Bill. I know that we discussed this matter on an earlier occasion. We have now discussed it again. Perhaps there is a possibility that this provision will be taken on board if a future conflict arises. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("may, and if so requested") and insert ("shall be consulted").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move this amendment as a life-long member of the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland. The two amendments in my name are very simple and they go together. The first asks that the Scottish Natural Heritage organisation, which we all support enthusiastically, should be included in the societies and the local authorities which are consulted when any planning applications involving special scenic areas are being discussed. Although the special areas are supposed to be under the protection of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, in practice that council has no statutory right to protect the SSSIs from damage or destruction.
That could be avoided if the statutory authorities were obliged to consult Scottish Natural Heritage first. That does not mean that all plans would be stopped, but those areas of special interest and beauty would be preserved. That would include recommendations involving national scenic areas, national nature reserves, environmentally sensitive areas and marine nature reserves. This amendment is intended not to prevent development in rural areas but to protect them from unnecessary and wanton development and to ensure that the new national environmental protection body is strong enough to carry out its work properly. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I appreciate fully my noble friend's motives and concerns in moving this amendment. I am of the opinion that no change is needed to Clause 2(2). It repeats the present Section 8 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, except for the reference in that section to land in the countryside. We have substituted the natural heritage in keeping with the functions of the new Scottish Natural Heritage. The provision has worked well in the past on its present basis, and we see no need to alter it. The Countryside Commission for Scotland has been consulted in accordance with Section 8 and has felt able to offer advice as it saw fit.
754
Obliging the Secretary of State or a planning authority to consult SNH gives no guarantee that they will accept its advice, which is surely my noble friend's real aim. The amendment also has the disadvantage that it leaves no room for discretion. SNH would need to offer advice on all cases under the 1972 Act, even if the planning authority itself did not look favourably on a particular case. Given the number of planning applications which would affect the natural heritage as defined in the Bill, an enormous number of cases would need to be referred to SNH. The absence of any discretion under the amendment would mean that no such case, however trivial, could be excluded. I suspect that my noble friend will agree that that would be a great misapplication of resources.
On a more general point, it may reassure my noble friend if I tell her that SNH will inherit the current arrangements under which the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland are notified of planning applications of particular interest to them. In the case of NCCS, those are planning applications relating to SSSIs, which therefore includes national nature reserves, special protection areas and RAMSAR sites. In the CCS's case, certain applications relating to national scenic areas are referred to it. As I say, that will continue to be the case, and all such applications will in future be notified to Scottish Natural Heritage. I trust that in the light of those remarks my noble friend will withdraw her amendments. I hope she will understand that I have a great deal of sympathy with what she is trying to do. I feel that we have essentially covered the point that she has been trying to make.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I am disappointed by what my noble friend said. Can he assure me that the authority of the SNH will be great enough to enable it to stop unfortunate or bad plans which, let us say, get the support of a local authority for no particular reason or because it thinks that that is the right decision? It may be that the plan will be very destructive. I simply want the SNH to have the authority to stop a plan if needs be.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is difficult to give that assurance because so much depends upon the specific case. In Clause 1, we are essentially giving SNH powers to consider the natural heritage of Scotland and its sustainability. In Clause 3, SNH has to take into account various duties; for example, the needs of agriculture, of fisheries and of forestry, among other things. So that it is difficult to give my noble friend a totally categorical assurance that SNH, in all cases, will be able to stop development.
Essentially, Scottish National Heritage is an advisory body. It can advise the Secretary of State, and can advise local authorities on what their decisions should be. Obviously, no local authority will take a decision, and neither will the Secretary of State, which goes against what Scottish National Heritage has advised, unless there are overwhelming reasons for doing so. That is the point that I am trying to make and I hope that my noble friend will accept that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not true that, in any case, any appeal against a development goes to the Secretary of State eventually?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. That in itself will give the Secretary of State an opportunity to look again at the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage, and he can make his decision in the light of that advice.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I shall not move the next one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
4.30 p m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. There is an error in the legislation. I am most grateful to him for pointing it out. I am also delighted to be able to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 41:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

  Report on proposed research
  .—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of section 2(c) above, SNH shall furnish the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (established in pursuance of section 128(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) with details of research projects which it proposes to commission or support including—

  (a) research which may he initiated or carried out by SNH itself; and

  (b) research which SNH proposes to commission, support, initiate or carry out itself on a direction given by the Secretary of State.

  (2) Details formulated in accordance with this section shall be included in the annual report made by SNH to the Secretary of State under section 9 of this Act.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister will be relieved to hear that this is new ground for him. He has not had this amendment from this side before. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the waste of scarce resources, money or staff, on overlapping or duplicating of research between country councils. Your Lordships will recall that in March this year the Science and Technology Committee of this House produced a report on the Nature Conservancy Council, a report which has come to be known as the Carver Report. That report stated in paragraph 3.22 on page 16:
  "The agencies should cooperate to avoid unnecessary duplication. For this latter purpose, lead agencies in specialist areas should be agreed and extensive use should be made by the Joint Committee of techniques like working parties and cooptions to bring the staff of country agencies together in professional groups."
  When I raised this problem at the Committee stage on 3rd. December, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, replied:
  "in practice there is no statutory requirement except through the work of the JNCC. Of course if there was overlapping it would not be the best use of resources, which it is a requirement of the SNH to provide. It would be impossible for me to say that it would never happen. All I can say is that it is something we do not want to happen."—[Official Report, 3/12/90; col. 38.]
  That seems clear enough.
  But on 5th December, at the launch of the NCC's Earth Science Strategy, which I attended, I put a question to the platform on this same subject and was given reassuring remarks from the platform. The question was then passed to the chairman designate of JNCC, Professor Holliday, who happened to be there.
  756
  He, too, made reassuring remarks. But in conclusion he said that, in any case, some competition in research was no bad thing.
  This may be all very well for commercial research, but surely, when we are talking about publicly funded bodies, especially bodies which are already very short of money, we do not want to go down the road of competition between them on something as fundamental as nature conservancy research. This amendment provides a very simple mechanism to avoid this situation, and I hope that the noble Lord is prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this amendment is quite a good one, in so far as it ensures that proper information on current research passes between the two bodies. As long as the amendment does not force Scottish Natural Heritage to use any facilities which are available—if they think, for example, that a Scottish university is much more competent about something—then it is quite a good amendment. But if it will force Scottish Natural Heritage to use available research in Peterborough, it is a bad amendment. But, as I understand it, it is not doing that.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I feel that there is no need for this amendment. If SNH wished to supply such information to the JNCC, it could readily do so by virtue of its general function under Clause 2 of the Bill. SNH would also include information about research in its annual report, as that report must include information about the discharge of its functions, of which research is one. The amendment would give SNH no discretion, however, as to whether it wished to report on research in quite so much detail.
  Moreover, the amendment shows a misunderstanding by the noble Baroness of the relationship between SNH and JNCC. First, it seems to assume that there will be little or no contact between these bodies, or that SNH will attempt to carry out or commission research without telling JNCC. I agree wholeheartedly that we do not want duplication of effort in the research field, but we do not need to resort to statutory provision to achieve that purpose. Secondly, and more fundamentally, it would permit JNCC to determine the research which SNH wishes to undertake for its own purposes or to undertake in pursuit of a direction from the Secretary of State. This is quite contrary to Parliament's wishes as set out in Section 133 of the 1990 Act, which allows JNCC to give advice or information to the county councils, and in Section 132 which places a duty on these councils to have regard to any advice provided by JNCC.
  Nothing like this duty was thought necessary for the other country councils. As a result, there is no equivalent to this provision in the legislation concerning the England and Wales councils, both of whom, along with SNH, form the JNCC, concerning the performance of their special nature conservation function. It would be odd if SNH were to be the only one of the three bodies with such an obligation.
  I reiterate our concern that we would not want to see public money being wasted. I think that, since the

  757
  country councils are, essentially the members of the JNCC, there should be no problem. For the reasons that I have laid out, I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment. But, more importantly, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, understands why I do not wish to accept it.
  Baroness Nicol: Yes, my Lords, I understand. But I want to pick up one or two points. First, I should have said in moving the amendment that it refers to SNH because that is what we have before us. I would wish some mechanism to be found to apply it to England and Wales. Obviously, it would not be fair to put any kind of restriction on one body and not on the others. But that I would have come to in due course, had the amendment found favour.
  As regards the annual report, I consider that information in the annual report would be too late. At that stage, we are being told what the body has done for the year and there seems to be little point at that stage in wringing our hands about duplication in research; so that is not a very valid argument.
  I know that SNH may, as indeed may any of the other councils, inform JNCC of what they intend to do. But it is not necessarily so that they will tell JNCC in good enough time or in enough detail for some sort of arrangement to be made about the amount or kind of research that they are doing.
  I wonder, would the Minister consider whether directions might be issued to all three country councils, to draw their attention to the need for not having overlapping research and for avoiding this waste of resources? I would have accepted the Minister's answer very confidently but for the remark made by the chairman designate of the JNCC which seemed to indicate that he might even welcome competition in research. That has to be avoided.
  I should like to hear that the Minister will give some more thought to whether directions can be issued. Does he wish to come back on that point?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall certainly consider that point and see whether or not it is possible. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Duty to take account of certain matters]:
  The Deputy Speaker (Lord Cullen of Ashbourne): My Lords, if Amendment No. 15 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 16 to 18.
  [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 2, line 39, after ("agriculture") insert ("field sports").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would lay a duty on SNH to take appropriate account of the needs not only of agriculture, commercial fisheries and forestry but also of field sports. By field sports, I mean fishing for sport, shooting and stalking. The amendment is also designed to make sure that
  758
  SNH is sufficiently sympathetic to the legitimate and honourable interests of landowners and their tenants, particularly in the Scottish Highlands where much of the natural heritage lies.
  I am of course aware that there is a good deal of mistaken prejudice against landowners and field sports, particularly perhaps among those who live in towns and who may be ignorant of the truth of what goes on in the countryside. The truth is that field sports are often vital to the social fabric in the isolated areas of Scotland and can be just as important there as forestry, commercial fisheries or indeed agriculture. The more isolated and fragile the community, the more important field sports often become. They are also highly sustainable in the best sense of that expression, as intended by the Bill. They receive no subsidy from the taxpayer, whereas all the other activities set out in the clause are quite heavily subsidised. Just on the figures alone, I should have thought that field sports merit inclusion in this clause.
  Let us look at sporting salmon fishing. The Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board published a report last year which concluded that more than 3,400 jobs and at least £50 million are generated each year on Scotland's salmon rivers. I do not have figures for the much more popular sport of trout fishing, which is often free in the Highlands, but it must also be a strong contributor to Scottish tourism and the Scottish economy.
  I turn now to shooting, including stalking. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has recently commissioned a report from the prestigious Fraser of Allander Institute. It concludes that these sports generate more than 7,200 full-time equivalent jobs and more than £50 million of income for Scotland. Again, those jobs tend to be in the outlying and fragile areas.
  So, at 10,600 jobs and more than £100 million of income, field sports compare very favourably with commercial fisheries. The netting side of commercial fisheries in the whole of Scotland has declined to some 390 jobs and £3 million of annual income, but the HIDB estimates that fish farming in its area now has an income of some £100 million and supports about 6,500 jobs. I do not have the figures for fish farming outwith the HIDB area but the comparison with field sports is clearly a close one, with field sports possibly offering more jobs. The long-term sustainability of some fish farming may be open to more doubt than field sports, I am afraid.
  But, this Bill is not motivated by the quest for a bottom line profit. Its purpose is to secure in a sustainable manner the conservation, enhancement, understanding and enjoyment of the natural heritage of Scotland. It is that purpose which field sports may serve better than any of the other activities set out in this clause. Let us take a closer look, for example, at deer stalking, which is certainly a vital industry to the remotest areas of mainland Highland Scotland.
  The Red Deer Commission estimates that red deer support some 500 full-time equivalent jobs, mostly in these areas. None of these jobs is subsidised by the

  759
  taxpayer, though they are heavily supported by the landowners. Many of the people concerned will also work with sheep, which are subsidised, but the future of subsidies for sheep is in some doubt at the moment. I therefore feel sure that SNH will come to welcome the support given to the social fabric of some of our remotest communities by the deer forest owners.
  Red deer are also certainly sustainable in the Highlands. Indeed some would say that the females —the hinds—have become too self-sustaining, and should be reduced in number. In this respect a rumour is going round that the Government plan to table an amendment, perhaps in another place, to give SNH the power to instruct the Red Deer Commission to execute any necessary reduction in numbers. If the rumour is true I fear that such instructions would put the Red Deer Commission in a very difficult position. The resultant large scale killing of hinds would be extremely unpopular in the locations where it took place and would even be unpopular nationally.
  Any surplus in hind numbers would be better dealt with by the existing deer management groups, possibly with enhanced powers, and by opening the season in which hinds can be shot earlier in the year, say, on 1st September instead of on 20th October as at present. I have made this suggestion before and I believe it would solve the problem very quickly. It would also have other connected benefits for the Highland economy and would be entirely in keeping with the purposes of the Bill. My noble friend the Minister may have referred to this problem at Second Reading. I wonder whether he can tell us what the plans are, if any.
  SNH is in effect to be a merger between the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. Landholders can perhaps be forgiven for feeling that the Countryside Commission has sometimes been a little too close to local authority and other interests which are not always wise in matters affecting the natural heritage, and that the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has sometimes taken too narrow a scientific view in some of its SSSI designations. The success or failure of the Government's worthy aims may therefore depend to an unusual extent upon SNH's chairman, on whom high hopes are riding, and on its members. It is with these fears at the back of my mind that I have moved this amendment. I hope I have said enough to show that field sports merit inclusion in the clause in the way I have suggested. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I support the amendment. It does not oblige Scottish Natural Heritage to take the advice it is given. Field sports in the Highlands are an important source of income in a large number of areas. The inclusion of this provision would not do any harm and it would oblige Scottish Natural Heritage to consider the points made so excellently by the noble Lord.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I support the amendment. Sport and Scotland, particularly in the
  760
  northern part, are almost synonymous. This matter should be in the Bill and should not be left to chance. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in moving the amendment I am sure that my noble friend is attempting to protect the interests of those engaged in activities such as deer stalking and shooting, which are a vital part of the financial viability of estate management throughout the Highlands. I entirely accept that. As such they are important components of the concept of the economic development of Scotland, which I think is adequately covered already in Clause 3(c).
  Field sports are not in the same category of uses of the natural environment as are agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Clause 3 at present picks out the three primary industries using the natural environment with which, because of their nature, SNH will have a special relationship. On the other hand, field sports are no different from other types of enjoyment of the countryside. SNH will approach them in the same way as other uses of the countryside. Earlier today I had to tell the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, that I could not accept his amendment on access and enjoyment of the countryside on the basis that the concept was already covered. I must say the same to my noble friend.
  I would expect SNH to carry out its functions with regard to these economically vital activities in a responsible manner. There will be no attempt on its part to intervene unnecessarily in such activities. Therefore, I see no need for a more specific reference in Clause 3 to field sports or, indeed, any other activities.
  My noble friend also spoke about deer. I can now confirm what I said on Second Reading. I said then that amendments would be put forward, probably in another place, to deal with the problem of the overpopulation of red deer, especially hinds, which has resulted in considerable damage to natural vegetation and habitats and which has a negative impact on the landscape. To overcome the problem, we intend to bring forward an amendment to the powers of the Red Deer Commission to allow it to cull deer in order to protect the natural heritage interest following advice from Scottish Natural Heritage.
  I know that my noble friend has made certain suggestions as to how the problem can be dealt with. I should like to extend to him an invitation that he and I, and perhaps a group of officials, have discussions aimed at avoiding confrontation and seeking, especially in the Highlands, a genuine solution that enhances co-operation among landowners, stalkers and those who believe that the environment is important. I believe that all those bodies could, and should, agree with one another.
  I hope that my noble friend is reassured on the question of deer. I hope he agrees too that, although I am not turning down the idea that Scottish Natural Heritage should have regard to field sports, this

  761
  amendment is inappropriate and, indeed, unnecessary. The responsibilities of SNH for field sports will be taken up in its regard for the economic and social welfare of the countryside.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his assurances. I am not entirely sure that I follow his reasoning on why field sports are in a different category to the other three activities mentioned in the clause. However, I shall certainly have a careful and enthusiastic look at what he said. I am also grateful for his invitation to be involved in any discussions with the Red Deer Commission and others over the future of the possibly excessive number of hinds in Scotland. I thank him again for those assurances and the invitation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 2, line 39, leave out ("and").
  The noble Lady said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak not only to Amendments Nos. 17 and 20 which are grouped together but also to Amendment No. 18 which was grouped with Amendment No. 15, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, which was not moved.
  I read very carefully what was said in Committee on 3rd December. In particular, I noted the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, at col. 48 of Hansard. He said that the amendment I moved at that stage was unnecessary. Nevertheless, a very real fear remains; namely, that Scottish Natural Heritage may put conservation above the livelihoods of the local inhabitants. That is something which the Nature Conservancy Council has not always been slow to do. The amendments will not have the undesirable effect of amounting to an injunction to ossify rural communities, which many noble Lords rightly said in Committee would be the effect of the amendments I put forward at the time. They would help to ensure that a sensible balance is kept.
  Sustainable development involves sustainable jobs which will endure over a long period of time and not vanish overnight leaving members of rural communities high and dry with no work and no means of earning a living. The amendments would safeguard the interests of local communities. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in Committee we discussed, as the noble Lady has said, the question of protecting rural interests. I believe that all of us, even those who were supporting the amendment, were not entirely happy with the then wording which featured preservation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde warned us that if an amendment along those lines were adopted it would run the risk of leading to the ossification of rural communities and he pointed out quite correctly that a hundred years ago, if communities had not been allowed to change as they have done, that would have been unfortunate.
  762
  It seems to me that the noble Lady in her present suggestion has got the matter about right. First, we need something in the Bill which is specifically about rural communities. Secondly, I believe that the present wording which refers to their best interests avoids the overtones of ossification and keeping them just as they are. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, at Committee made an extremely good point when he said, that the Bill, in referring to social and economic development, conjures up in our minds development on a very large scale which does not necessarily take note of the interests of rural communities. For that reason I urge my noble friend to accept the balanced wording of these amendments.
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, the rural community in Scotland is of crucial importance. In the Highlands I would have said that it is more crucial than in any other part of the islands. A matter of two jobs can mean a very high percentage of the village population. The giving of, let us say, six or seven new jobs has on many occasions breathed totally new life into a community that was dying.
  My noble friend on the Front Bench may remember that at Question Time a few weeks ago I raised with him the matter of the loss of six jobs in a tiny community at Kinlock Laggan. Such a loss is bound to have a tremendous effect on the small rural community in that area. I believe that the point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in a supplementary question. That particular loss of jobs was not caused by anything that the Countryside Commission had done. However, I can certainly see the possibility of the commission taking some such action. I agree that this may be a hypothetical example, but it is perfectly possible that it could take action which would have a crucial effect on a small community.
  In conclusion, I must tell my noble friend that, having occupied the position in another place which he now occupies in this place, I often find the scarcity of amendments which the Government are prepared to accept quite extraordinary. It was always my policy, no doubt in order to keep the peace at all costs, to go over matters with my officials and say, "Well, what can we accept?" It certainly sweetens not only the Opposition but also the Back Benchers who are—in another place, at any rate—dragooned into supporting the Government. The amendment is not just of great importance; it contains words that cannot possibly damage the purpose of the legislation.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for again directing our attention to this important matter. I am deeply impressed by the amount of concern shown by noble Lords for the interests of local communities. I share that concern. My noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston suggested that I should sweeten the Opposition and my Back-Benchers. He gave the example of another place. I have always tried hard to sweeten my Back-Benchers. I am not always so keen to sweeten the Opposition, but I believe that tae noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will agree that I have sought to be as

  763
  sweet as possible, and have explained the Government's position carefully. Where I have been unable to accept his amendments, I have explained why as clearly as possible without taking an unduly partisan approach.
  We had an interesting debate on this issue in Committee. I emphasised then that I have a great deal of sympathy for supporting rural areas, rural economies and local communities. I pointed out that, with my responsibilities for agriculture, fisheries, tourism and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the interests of local communities are of paramount importance to me and the various government organisations which exist in the Highlands.
  We intend that SNH will not operate as a centralised body issuing edicts to the detriment of local people, and I am sure that that is part of what the noble Lady intends by this amendment. As I stated in Committee, I do not see the need for an amendment to ensure that. The provision as drafted is all-embracing and covers everything that the noble Lady and other noble Lords as well as I would wish to see here.
  I feel that there is a slight problem with the use of the word "community" here; I am not convinced that it fully identifies every interest of which we would wish to take account. Your Lordships will know that throughout many parts of rural Scotland, there are numbers of people, particularly crofters, living in isolated locations, often not forming any sort of "community" with others. Certainly SNH would consider their interests in its operations in their respective localities, but I am not sure that they would he covered by the proposed amendment.
  I sense beneath the arguments of those in favour of the amendment an unspoken feeling that conservation is somehow a blight to rural areas. I am sorry that that should be the case. Scottish scenery is famous the world over. Our flora and fauna are of international significance. It would be a great pity to perpetuate the attitude that attempts to conserve them somehow spell the kiss of death to local communities. We need only consider the number of visitors that our natural heritage attracts to realise what potent assets they are.
  An important aspect of the concept of sustainability involves the recognition that conservation and development complement one another. We must move forward from the antagonisms of the past into a more co-operative and less conflict-ridden future.
  The other aspect of the noble Lady's concern relates to the need to ensure that people receive no less consideration than protected species. I agree with that argument, but it loses sight of our basic purpose in bringing forward the Bill. Of course, people in rural areas must be considered, and there is a whole range of bodies which have that as their main role. The main role of SNH is, however, conservation and it would be misleading to deny that. There is therefore a limit to what SNH can do in relation to the interests of local communities. Without for a moment denying the importance of human needs, we must be careful not to impair SNH's basic aims. We are placing on it an explicit duty to take account of the social and
  764
  economic needs of Scotland or any part of Scotland. There is no restriction on how small a part of Scotland SNH might focus on. The Bill therefore covers adequately the interests of local communities, but the duty is a balancing duty, and I think that that is proper, given SNH's fundamental orientation.
  I know that we have already covered that ground in Committee, but it was useful to return to it on Report. I hope that I have convinced my noble friends and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that I am not against the principle of her amendment, but it does not fit into the Bill and in any case a substantial part of her concern is already covered by SNH's balancing duty.
  Earl of Perth: My Lords, I listened to the Minister's reply. When we were discussing the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the Minister pointed out—I believe rightly and I was ready to accept it—that the word "economic" covered field sports. As I understand his argument, I am doubtful whether the word "social" covers the interests of local inhabitants, if he does not like the word "communities".
  Some years ago, the Government believed that it was important to develop a new site for constructing rigs in one of the West Coast areas. Many of the local inhabitants were against the proposal. Nonetheless, it was imposed. The sequel, 10 or more years later, is that the scheme has been dropped. That was the result of consultation. Consultation on such issues is important. The local inhabitants often know better than anyone else.
  There is nothing in the Bill which makes it obligatory for SNH to consult local inhabitants or communities. It is all very well for the Minister to say, "Oh, but it will": what certainty do we have about that? I beg the Minister to think again and to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, about occasionally giving way and accepting an amendment which cannot do any harm but which could satisfy many of us as being in the interests of the whole scheme of things.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are of course on Report, which means that certain rules apply. With the leave of the House, I shall read carefully what has been said. I have listened attentively to the words of my noble friends. The point is that SNH is a body which is essentially concerned with conserving Scotland's natural heritage. Other organisations deal with developments relating to local inhabitants. Those two duties are not mutually exclusive. Different government bodies will be able to discuss with one another what line to take. At the moment I cannot offer the noble Lady any succour by saying that I shall accept the amendments at a later stage.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
  The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I must inform the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that we are on Report.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I should have thought that crofters' needs were catered for under agriculture, which has been mentioned, and that,

  765
  when needs are specified, those which are not specified, are ipso facto excluded. On that basis, I have to differ from my noble friend Lord Perth. I should not have thought that under the previous amendment "economic" covered field sports.
  I appreciate the point that the Bill concerns conservation, not the economic development of local communities nor the prosperity of local inhabitants. However, I did not ask for the SNH to concern itself with the economic development of local communities. I merely asked that it should have regard to their interests in what it did. I should not have thought that that was asking too much. What I ask is not unreasonable, nor does it militate against the objects of the Bill. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
  5.11 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 88.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Abinger, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Addington, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Airedale, L.

  Houghton of Sowerby, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Ardwick, L.

  Jay, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Birk, B.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  John-Mackie, L.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

  Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Longford, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Lyell, L.

  Carter, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  McGregor of Durris, L.

  Cox, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  David, B.

  Manton, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Mills, V.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Dulverton, L.

  Newall, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Nicol, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Perth, E. [Teller.]

  Ewart-Biggs, B.

  Peston, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Phillips, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Fisher of Rednal, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Gallacher, L.

  Sainsbury, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

  Gladwyn, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Seear, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Gregson, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Grey, E.

  Shepherd, L.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Halsbury, E.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  766

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Wallace of Coslany, L

  Walston, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Varley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aldington, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Knollys, V.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Arran, E.

  Long, V.

  Astor, V.

  Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

  Auckland, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Mersey, V.

  Blake, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Blatch, B.

  Mountevans, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Munster, E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Braye, B.

  Norrie, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Butterworth, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Pender, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Pym, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Constantine of Stanmore, L.

  Reay, L. [Teller.]

  Cottesloe, L.

  Rees, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Renton, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Romney, E.

  Denham, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Elles, B.

  St. John of Fawsley, L.

  Elton, L.

  Savile, L.

  Faithfull, B.

  Sharples, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

  Gainford, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Henley, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Hives, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Holderness, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Wise, L.

  Ingleby, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  5.20 p.m.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 is not moved.
  Noble Lords: It is consequential!
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 2, line 40, after ("for") insert ("sustainable").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("and
  (d) the policies and strategies of national and regional organisations with responsibility for social and economic development in Scotland.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed earlier a matter that approached the aim of this amendment, but I am motivated to move the amendment because it comes from the Scottish Sports

  767
  Council. The noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, remarked earlier that he had never participated in a Bill which had been so strongly defended by the Government. He said he gained the impression that there had never been a Bill quite as perfect as this one. I came to much the same conclusion in Committee when I experienced the way the Minister was fending off arguments. However, Government Amendment No. 41 comprises six pages of schedule. One could hardly say that that was not a sweetener from the Minister. We shall reach that amendment later, but I wish to say in passing that while I appreciate the help that the Minister has provided it would have been even ricer had he sent us an explanation of that measure. We on this side of the House had little time to commit over the weekend.
  However, as regards Amendment No. 19, the Scottish Sports Council is merely calling attention once again to what it considers is a deficiency in the organisation of conservation. The council believes there should be some process whereby inter-agency disputes could be discussed at an early stage of consultation and planning. It is important to let the Minister know how strong feelings are on this matter in Scotland. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I recognise that this amendment is closely related to one that was discussed in Committee. I explained then that SNH would obviously seek the views of many different organisations, and not just those of the type and with the responsibilities mentioned in the amendment, to allow it to take appropriate account of all the factors set down in Clause 3. Furthermore, inclusion of this amendment would simply invite the inclusion of references to the policies and strategies of other non-departmental public bodies, local authorities and other organisations to the extent that the legislation could never be adequate and comprehensive. Clause 3 is perfectly adequate as drafted, in particular paragraph (c) which addresses the issues raised by this amendment.
  This amendment would require SNH to take account of the policies and strategies of such bodies, and not merely their views. I do not feel that that is acceptable. Scottish Natural Heritage will, of course, take account of those policies and strategies in exactly the same way as I would expect those bodies to take account of the policies and strategies devised by SNH. The amendment is therefore not needed here any more than it is needed in, for example, the constitution of the Scottish Sports Council.
  The amendment also fails to recognise that it is the Secretary of State who has the opportunity to adjudicate where there is any difference of policy, strategy or view between non-departmental public bodies which is both fundamental to their operation and to the implementation of government policy. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will understand why his amendment is not required and will withdraw it.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I believe I made the point earlier that it was important for the Minister to
  768
  realise that there is a widespread feeling in Scotland that sufficiently early consideration is not given to the need for the different agencies to get together to discuss matters. There has been sufficient discussion on this point to make SNH aware that consultations at an early stage should be encouraged. It is not enough to say that the Secretary of State has the final power in the matter. I hope that only matters of fairly grave importance will be referred to the Secretary of State. I would hope that most other matters could be settled amicably between the bodies themselves. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 2, line 41, at end insert ("and
  (d) the interests of local communities.").
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, just before we accept this amendment, I must say that I have some confusion in my mind. I believe that earlier on the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, sought not to move Amendment No. 18, but then moved it. At the time I was slightly confused. I believe the noble Lady was right originally not to have moved Amendment No. 18 which is grouped with Amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 20 is grouped with the amendment that we voted on and which the noble Lady won. I hope I may take it that the noble Lady did not intend to move Amendment No. 18—as was her original intention—but she is seeking to move Amendment No. 20 which I shall not speak against.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. Amendment No. 20 is consequential on Amendment No. 17, or vice versa. However, Amendment No. 18 is a separate amendment. We are now discussing Amendment No. 20. I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, there is some confusion here. I believe that Amendment No. 18 should have been taken with Amendment No. 15. I did not move Amendment No. 15. I am not sure how Amendment No. 18 stands if it was not moved with the other amendment it was grouped with. Obviously the House does not need to accept the grouping, but in this case it was accepted. Therefore, subject to the ruling of the House, I should have thought that Amendment No. 18 should not have been called.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in view of the confusion that exists, I hope the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will agree to us sorting the matter out on Third Reading.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in the circumstances, I believe that would be the best arrangement.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
  Clause 4 [Nature conservation functions]:
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 3, line 6, at end insert:

  769
  ("() Where in the exercise of its functions relating to the designation of sites of special scientific interest, + SNH receives an objection, after consulting the General, Regional or District Planning Authority, or any person with an interest in the land in question, the matter shall be referred to the Secretary of State who shall have authority to confirm, amend or withdraw the proposed designation after appointing a local hearing.").
  The noble Lady said: My Lords, an identical amendment to Amendment No. 22 was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, but later withdrawn. Unfortunately, the noble Lord is not able to be here this evening. The Government's response at cols. 54 to 56 of Hansard of 3rd December was correct in fact but it ignores the true issues, which are that the ability to object to a notification is not the same thing as the right to appeal; that as any proposed changes to land use require the agreement of the Nature Conservancy Council in any case, the argument that notification places no restriction on use is not really valid; and that it is wrong that the Nature Conservancy Council, incorporated into SNH, should be the only judge of scientific interest. It is perfectly possible that it might be mistaken. I believe that it has been in the past. There should be some system of, at least, scientific appeal. That is what Amendment No. 23 is designed to achieve.
  Appeal and arbitration procedures with respect to land use do not allow for appeal against the actual designation of an SSSI, which is the most important stage in the operation of the system. The Nature Conservancy Council is an appointed body and its functions are conferred by statute. Whereas the Secretary of State gives the NCC directions of a general character, he has no authority to overrule the council's powers of SSSI designation under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, at Committee stage, if I am not very much mistaken.
  The power of the NCC in Scotland has therefore been absolute and there is no independent body to which an aggrieved party may appeal. Absolute power is only too easily misused and is inconsistent with the philosophy of SNH and the Secretary of State's intention to be accountable for all the Government's environmental policies in Scotland. Accountability means the safeguarding of individuals' rights.
  Although the NCC and the Government may claim that SSSI designation simply identifies the environmental importance of a site and carries with it no presumption against development or normal agricultural and land use operations there is continuing concern among rural and farming communities and a strong feeling that normal operations and reasonable development will be restricted by SNH using the potentially damaging operations procedures once a site has been designated. Instances of that have arisen in Glen Feshie, where historic operations to ease the flow of the river and protect farmland are being challenged as damaging to a proposed geological SSSI, and in Caithness, on Stroma, where an increase in sheep numbers and the takeover of a farm by the farmer's son have been refused by the Nature
  770
  Conservancy Council. In addition, there is the autocratic way in which the Nature Conservancy Council so often clamps SSSI status on a large area of land in order to protect a small area of real importance within it.
  The Government hope that relations between SNH and the rural inhabitants of Scotland will be much better in the future than they have been in the past between the NCC and local inhabitants. That will only be the case if SNH is not able, as the NCC is, to ride roughshod over local interests and people's livelihoods and to be judge and jury in its own cases.
  Amendment No. 23 is a narrower proposition, confining the right of appeal to scientific grounds. Naturally, I prefer Amendment No. 22, which would include the principle of Amendment No. 23. However, Amendment No. 23 would be better than nothing. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, perhaps the first point that we need to consider in relation to this question, however concerned we may be about the right of appeal against designation of an SSSI, is whether there may already be satisfactory redress in the Bill. As the noble Lady has just pointed out, there is certainly the right to object to notification. However, that is not the same as a right of appeal.
  Secondly, it is true that it does not follow from notification that there will be restriction on land use. It is up to the owner or occupier to decide how he uses the land. Nevertheless, when he proposes to change that land use he needs to have the consent of SNH. Therefore, if SNH does not wish a particular change to take place there is a restriction nevertheless. Yet, in spite of that, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde pointed out in Committee there is still the redress of appeal against an objection which SNH might make to a change of land use by an occupier or owner. However, as can be seen from this description of procedures, those combined arrangements fall short of a right of appeal against the designation of an SSSI in the first place.
  Thus, the next question is: do we think it right that there should in principle be redress and a right of appeal? As the noble Lady has pointed out, there is of course a very strong case in favour. It is also inconsistent that representatives of an appointed body should be able to lay down the law without question where there might nevertheless be conflict with representatives of an elected body in a local authority area.
  In the case of appeal on scientific grounds, equally, your Lordships may feel that the monopoly of scientific wisdom will not necessarily always lie with the representatives of SNH and that therefore it would be very useful to have in the Bill some redress so that an appeal can be made on scientific grounds. In that case, and as is proposed in the amendment, the Secretary of State would be able to appoint a specialist or specialists to arbitrate on the matter.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to support these amendments because in 1985 I had

  771
  the unfortunate experience of having large areas of my own ground on Rannoch Moor declared an SSSI by the Nature Conservancy Council. I thought that it might be appropriate to share with your Lordships some of the mystifications of the process.
  The three main reasons given by the Nature Conservancy Council were: first, that the waters of my largest loch were very poor in nutrients and getting poorer—in other words, the loch was dying, or "oligotrophic" as the jargon goes; secondly, that about 1,000 acres along its shores were important wetlands which might contain rare plants, although I gather that in the intervening period the plants have not been found; and, thirdly, that a patch of yellow lilies in a lochan in front of my holiday cottage were very rare and would benefit from the water in which they grew becoming even more oligotrophic.
  There was, and is, no appeal against the designation, the justification for which seems very questionable to a layman like me. Lengthy letters to the Nature Conservancy Council have not produced reasoned scientific answers, just replies along the lines of, "It's an SSSI because we say so, and that's an end of it".
  The main bone of my contention in this particular case is that the land in question and the water which flows off it, and so the loch itself, have become noticeably poorer over the last 150 years or so, in part because of constant grazing by sheep and deer, to the exclusion of cattle. Cattle, with their more nutritious manuring pattern and their preference for the long molinia grass, do the ground nothing but good. Molinia grass is a growing cancer in my area, and indeed in much of the Western Highlands. It grows long and if it is not grazed it falls over and shuts out the light from everything under it.
  I have tried to point out to the Nature Conservancy Council that cattle have been part of the natural grazing, balance since they were created—or since they evolved, whichever you prefer. Deer and sheep eat the short, nutritious grass, cattle eat the long grass which sheep and deer will not touch. That is the natural order of things. Yet the Nature Conservancy Council, under the SSSI order, now forbids me to put cattle on the ground in question. I have had to build a fence five miles long to exclude them from it. So the land continues on its path to decay as a result.
  I have managed to put cattle on land outwith the SSSI The molinia grass is receding, heather and other plants are advancing, to the benefit of all manner of flora and fauna. The ground in the SSSI remains a dying desert.
  The decision over the lilies seems even stranger to me. Since the SSSI designation, and the consequent forbidding of any activity which might be nutritious to the ground surrounding the lochan in which the lilies grow, the lilies started to look a bit sick. I was told by the Nature Conservancy Council that that did not matter; in view of the restriction they would soon recover. But they did not; they became even sicker. Then I realised that their sickness coincided with the nearby holiday cottage having been comparatively
  772
  unused for two years while a temporary forester came and went. An interesting fact hit me. I suddenly realised that the lilies grow near to the place where the sewage overflow from the cottage enters the loch. The cottage has now been occupied for two whole seasons and the sewage has been suitably activated. I am sure it has nothing to do with the scientific facts but all I can say is that the lilies have recovered in a remarkable way.
  This makes me wonder about the wisdom of the SSSI designation in the first place. Therefore I wanted very much to test that designation, at least with other scientists, with some of whom I have been able to talk off the record. They have all agreed that the exclusion of cattle from such an area is very short-sighted and unlikely to be in the interests of good nature conservation in its real sense. That is why I should like to support this amendment.
  Lord Kimball: My Lords, it is with some diffidence, as the English proprietor of a cleared highland estate, that I say anything on matters so essentially Scottish as this amendment. However, I declared an interest earlier, in that for the whole of the wilderness area of Altnaharra in central Sutherland I have since 1987 been investigating the possibility of a management agreement under the 1949 Act.
  In the meantime, with the peatland survey team of the Nature Conservancy Council I have had exactly the same experience as my noble friend Lord Pearson. Three major SSSI designations have been put on three different parts of the estate. According to the booklet which was sent with the paper giving notification of the designation, within nine months of notification the Secretary of State must confirm the designation of the SSSI and I have three months in which to object. However, even if I get the Department of Land Use from Edinburgh University and some of the most distinguished scientists to support my view, there is no scientific committee to which I can make a proper appeal. Therefore it is my intention to support Amendment No. 23. I believe that it will solve that problem.
  Let us look for instance at one of the SSSIs, which is an area of 18,000 acres spreading over two watersheds. Surely we all agree that in all matters to do with nature conservancy one has to look at the wilderness areas and view nature conservation as it is bounded by the natural boundaries of existing watersheds. To make an 18,000 acre SSSI which goes across two different watersheds defies all sensible scientific knowledge. In fact I am advised by scientists that within those 18,000 acres there are only 1,000 acres of what they call deep blanket flow bog with special bog communities and a high density of nesting wading birds. In order to protect those 1,000 acres it is intended to put round them an SSSI 17 times their size.
  It happens that on that SSSI of 18,000 acres two men are employed: a shepherd and a keeper. If the SSSI designation is confirmed, my ability to continue to employ those men and pay them increasing wages will be severely limited. I can only continue to employ the shepherd if I increase the sheep stock and I can

  773
  only increase the sheep stock by fencing in the land to give me more ground which I can improve to carry more sheep. If I were to get rid of the keeper the first thing to happen would be that the SSSI itself would be damaged because there would be nobody to control the deer. Whatever one may say about sheep grazing, deer grazing will be just as damaging to the SSSI.
  If the SSSI is to thrive and keep its high density of nesting wading birds, something has to be done about the mammalian and avian predators in the area but one will not be allowed to act without a special licence from the Nature Conservancy Council. We all want to preserve what is valuable but we want to be satisfied that what is being done is done the correct scientific way. We need a body such as the one set out in this amendment to which we can appeal and make our case, a body which will be respected by the crofters, farmers and those who have to try to get a living from the area.
  5.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, my motive in supporting this amendment is based entirely on parliamentary experience of service on Select Committees of your Lordships' House—to specify three of them: Select Committees on the Dartmoor Commons Bill, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. In every case I listened to arguments to the effect that something which would completely frustrate the purpose of the Bill was in the public interest in that the Bill invaded something designated as an SSSI.
  Listening to the evidence, I could not help feeling that there are environmental enthusiasts who specify SSSIs much as a philatelist collects postage stamps. I have listened to very little evidence that convinces me that there is anything very special about the designated areas. I grant that they are of marginal scientific interest but there is nearly always some other place where something of very much the same character flourishes. I see no reason why the absolute authority to specify an area as special without having listened to arguments for and against it should be allowed. Therefore I support the amendment in the hope that your Lordships will agree to it.
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, both my noble friends have given examples of the operation of the SSSIs in the highlands. But let us not for one moment suppose that those operations are confined to that area. SSSIs exist and cause considerable dislocation in many lowland areas. There are a great many of them, causing considerable dislocation to private operations as a result of the actions of a public outside body.
  I overheard my noble friend, in reply to an amendment proposed a little while ago by my noble friend Lady Elliot, say that, although with regard to her amendment he could not allow a form of appeal, the Secretary of State would automatically be involved with any planning operation because he has a locus. If I remember rightly, that is what he said.
  This is a most suitable amendment for the Scottish Office. Unlike England and Wales, where separate
  774
  Ministers are involved with the interests of agriculture as against those of science and the environment, in Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for both those matters. He is therefore an admirable person to whom an appeal can, and in my view should, be made.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I urge the Minister to look into the matter and perhaps combine the points made in Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. It is obvious that the fauna of the highlands in the form of the landlords are in great need of help. Certainly they are in need of justice. The simple fact is that giving anybody unrestricted power is against British justice and certainly Scottish justice. I hope that he will be sensible and consider those problems.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I rise to support either Amendment No. 22 or Amendment No. 23 or both. It seems to me that these amendments are even more important than the amendment which we succeeded in winning a short while ago. What is at stake is a right of appeal. If there is no right of appeal one has a body which is autocratic and all-embracing: what it says goes. One has heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others, examples of their experience.
  I believe that the amendment goes to the heart of the matter. I should like the provision to be made even wider. We refer to SSSIs. But what about the designation of a national park, for example? Is that a suitable designation without a right of appeal?
  Schedule 2 contains an amendment of enactments in relation to access. The provision states that the right of access (as designated by I know not whom) will have to be confirmed under certain conditions by the Secretary of State. The Government accept that in that one instance—because it is very controversial—one can appeal on access to the Secretary of State. But why not on all aspects? Because an appeal is a big undertaking, one will do so only if there are good grounds.
  The amendment is of key importance to the operation of the system. I hope that it is accepted.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in the past we have had several debates about the need for an appeal system in relation to SSSI designation. I take it that we are speaking also to Amendment No. 23, though I do not suppose that we could agree to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. That obviously would not work. However, I realised as soon as I saw these amendments again on the Marshalled List that even after reading what I had said in Committee several noble Lords remained unconvinced by my powers of persuasion. I noticed too that Amendment No. 22 still contains the defective grammar to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy drew attention. I therefore hope that we shall not seek to press that amendment.
  I should like to take as my starting point this time the telling comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in Committee. She expressed disappointment that even though Scotland was getting its own

  775
  organisation to deal with its own problems, noble Lords had set out to distrust SNH before it had even begun. I too share that sense of disappointment.
  In this Bill we are setting up a new organisation, Scottish Natural Heritage, which will be made up of the old Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Scottish constituent part of the Nature Conservancy Council. The Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland has been introduced because of some of the problems that have been obvious to everyone for a long time in having a Great Britain-organised Nature Conservancy Council. We have already conceded that something was essentially wrong with the way that the NCC operated. That is why we set up the NCC for Scotland. That is why we are now going further to set up Scottish Natural Heritage.
  I have a number of objections to these amendments. In the first place, we have made it clear all along that what we are undertaking, both in this Bill and in the Environmental Protection Act, is a reorganisation of the administration of conservation. We do not intend to tamper with the substance of nature conservation, as these amendments would. Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would need to be amended to accommodate the procedure envisaged here. The amendments make no provision for that.
  In failing to do so, the amendment establishes a system of designation in Scotland different from that in England and Wales. In other circumstances, Members of this House have been extremely anxious to ensure that nature conservation in Scotland remains on all fours with nature conservation in England and Wales. Acceptance of this amendment would be a fundamental breach of that principle and a commitment that government have given, not just in this House but in another place.
  Much of the earlier discussion was couched in terms of the supposedly undemocratic way in which Scottish Natural Heritage would be expected to proceed. Those arguments were based on the lack of an appeals procedure. As I explained in Committee, it will be for SNH to decide that a piece of land merits designation; and that is a decision which will be taken with very great care. While Scottish Natural Heritage is the sole statutory judge of the scientific interest of a site, the criteria it employs will be scrutinised by its scientific peers and Scottish Natural Heritage will be able to consider with the other country councils, through the JNCC, whether those criteria are uniform with those in other parts of Great Britain. There is the further protection to the landowner that where disputes about land use change arise, Section 29 nature conservation orders are matters for the Secretary of State, and Schedule 11 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 sets out detailed procedures dealing with objections, including the holding of a public local inquiry.
  Once SNH has decided that a site should be designated, it has a positive duty to notify the local planning authority, every owner and occupier concerned and the Secretary of State. Any of these parties can object to the notification. I have on several
  776
  occasions made the claim for Scottish Natural Heritage that it will mark the start of a new era in conservation in Scotland. It will adopt more positive approaches and seek to promote co-operation rather than conflict because that suits nobody. The experiences of my noble friends Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Kimball refer to situations that were part of an old order. I cannot believe that they would be repeated again under the co-ordination of Scottish Natural Heritage.
  Those who would argue that the SSSI procedures are unfair and undemocratic seem to me to be missing a fundamental point; that is, that notification of an SSSI in itself places no restriction on the use to which the owner and occupier put the land. All that is required is for any changes to the use of that land to be agreed with SNH. The system is a voluntary one. SNH will not be able to impose a particular land use on an unwilling owner.
  I have some sympathy with the essence of the amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, which relates to peer group scrutiny. We consider that very important for Scottish Natural Heritage's operations. The amendment, however, ignores the fact that SNH will be exposed to such scrutiny. The Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland intends to establish a scientific steering group which will act as a panel of scientific experts of the sort envisaged by the amendment. I am sure your Lordships would wish to join the Government in welcoming that initiative.
  The amendment also ignores the role of the JNCC of advising on common approach to site search, identification and notification.
  I have little hope of being able to convince noble Lords who have spoken on this point. But we have gone over this ground several times before. I can only ask them to read very carefully what I have said and to approach the establishment of the new body in a new spirit, prepared to give it the opportunity to establish new procedures and to encourage a new attitude towards conservation in Scotland.
  Whatever may have happened in the past, I am quite convinced that Scottish Natural Heritage, whenever it receives objections to proposed designations, will reconsider the matter very carefully. In the light of that assurance I hope that the proposers of the amendment will be prepared to withdraw it. I hope that we can discuss carefully the environment in which Scottish Natural Heritage should work in designating SSSIs before we agree either of the two amendments.
  I have no idea of the position of the Labour Party on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, spoke in Committee. I am not sure of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on the appeals procedures for designation of SSSIs. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, speaks for the Liberal Democrats. He has made it plain that he supports an appeals procedure. However, he has suggested that there should be further thought about the matter. That is the approach that I wish to offer the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.

  777
  I cannot give a commitment at this stage. However, I am keen to resolve the position because today so many noble Lords have spoken in a negative way about the Nature Conservancy Council. Scottish Natural Heritage is a new body with similar responsibilities. It has the new role and responsibility of co-operation rather than confrontation. It is in that spirit that I ask the noble Lady to withdraw her amendments until further consultation has taken place.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am in as great a difficulty as are many other Members of this House. I am willing to give a guarded acceptance to the Minister's comments, largely because he said that the new body will play a new ball game. However, there is the possibility of an abuse of the old powers. The Minister has gone some way towards assuring me that that will not happen, and perhaps we should discover what will happen to mistakes that have already been made.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the proposition that I have been making is that many problems arose with the designation of the SSSIs because of the insensitive approach of the Nature Conservancy Council based in Peterborough. However, we have split up the NCC into country councils and now we are developing Scottish Natural Heritage. It is our hope and desire that in future Scottish Natural Heritage will be a far more effective organisation in dealing with local people at a local level. It will be interested not only in conservation but in a whole range of activities ensuring that Scotland's natural heritage is looked after in the best possible way.
  Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wish to understand his speech correctly. Is he unwilling to consider the question of appeal but believes that a Scottish body may be less autocratic than a British body?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is not so much whether a British body will be more or less autocratic. We all recognise that the NCC, which was based in Peterborough, was not an English organisation but a Great Britain organisation and could not react to some of the problems that arose in the outlying areas of Scotland. Now that we have a Scottish NCC and Scottish Natural Heritage there will be more opportunity for the type of co-operation that we all wish to see.
  Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend but before he sits down I wish to ask two or three questions which arise out of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. First, the Minister said that he does not wish to see inconsistency between the two new bodies. He then went on to say that the new body will be more sensitive and, therefore, different. That means that it will be inconsistent. Secondly, how does the Minister see that transferring the venue and the people will alter
  778
  the principle of there being a body against which there is no sensible appeal? There will be no difference whatever.
  The Minister may object to Amendment No. 22, but Amendment No. 23 produces a totally unassailable suggestion of an appeal body which is in no way affected by the argument that he has put forward. He talks about co-operation versus conflict. I am sure that those of us who support the amendment will bitterly resent being accused of being anti-conservationist. We are not. However, some of us worry about the fact that unless such a provision is added the Nature Conservancy Council will acquire a bad name in Scotland. In order to protect that body surely it is necessary for it to justify its decisions to a sensible body such as is suggested in Amendment No. 23. I am totally unconvinced by the Minister's reply.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall respond to my noble friend's comments. I am being entirely consistent in my approach. I am not comparing the NCC for Scotland or Scottish Natural Heritage with the NCC for England. I am comparing it with the old Great Britain NCC which no longer exists. Therefore, there is no question of my being inconsistent. The NCC for Scotland and the new SNH will be organisations far more receptive to local needs than the old NCC for Great Britain could possibly have been. That is why I am saying that we do not need the appeal procedure.
  The second reason why we do not need the procedure is that we have a long history of environment legislation. By statute we have set up a body which is specifically designed to advise Government on the best way forward in respect of environmental issues. The amendments propose, first, a complete right of appeal on every decision that the body of experts may make. Effectively, that is second guessing a statutory body. Secondly, Amendment No. 23 gives the right of appeal to a second panel of experts.
  I have already said that I have some sympathy with the second amendment and the scientific panel. However, I have suggested to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that before taking that step forward we should stand back for a few more weeks until Third Reading and consult widely with the NCC for Scotland and the Countryside Commission in order to ascertain how the operation will work. I am not sure where the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, stands but I suspect that he will side with the Government on this issue. However, that remains to be seen.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the Minister has made out a convincing case. The only difficulty is that I am not entirely convinced by it. He hopes that SNH will begin a new era in the history of conservation in Scotland and is sorry that we are so distrustful of SNH. We distrust SNH because we distrust any organisation which has unlimited powers such as those of the Nature Conservancy Council, with no right of appeal. It is as simple as that.
  I accept that Amendment No. 22 is defective. I noticed only when it was too late that the noble Lord,

  779
  Lord Taylor of Gryfe, had tabled the identical amendment which was found to be defective in Committee. For that reason I shall withdraw the amendment while reserving the right to bring it back at Third Reading in a redrafted form.
  It has been argued that if either of my amendments were accepted the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 would need to be amended, repealed or whatever. It is said that the Act applies to the whole of Britain and cannot be amended only for Scotland. I cannot accept that argument because I can see no reason why in amending the Act for Scotland it should not also be amended for England and Wales. I believe that would be more satisfactory to the inhabitants of those countries. However, I shall withdraw Amendment No. 22 and reserve the right to return to it at a later stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 3, line 6, at end insert:
  ("() Where in the exercise of its functions relating to the designation of sites of special scientific interest, SNH receives an objection, and where the objection is on scientific grounds alone, the Secretary of State shall refer the matter to a panel of appropriate scientific experts, who will advise upon the scientific merits of the proposed designation.").
  The noble Lady said: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord has said, I should like to ask the opinion of the House on this amendment. I beg to move.
  6.10 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 82.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Abinger, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Airedale, L.

  Mills, V.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Newall, L.

  Bonham-Carter, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Cox, B.

  Palmer, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Perth, E. [Teller.]

  Denman, L.

  Pitt of Hampstead, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Pym, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Renton, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Fitt, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

  Gainsborough, E.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Seear, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Greenway, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Grey, E.

  Shepherd, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Stedman, B.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Strange, B.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Tryon, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Whaddon, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  McGregor of Durris, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Winstanley, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Wynford, L.

  780

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Holderness, L.

  Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Arran, E.

  Hooper, B.

  Astor, V.

  Ingrow, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Belstead, L.

  Kagan, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Birk, B.

  Lawrence, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

  Blake, L.

  Long, V.

  Blatch, B.

  Longford, E.

  Boardman, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Boston of Faversham, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Carter, L.

  Munster, E.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Pender, L.

  Cross, V.

  Plan of Writtle, B.

  Davidson, V. [Teller.]

  Prior, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Reay, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Rees, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Elles, B.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Faithfull, B.

  Savile, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Shackleton, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Galpern, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Hanson, L.

  Underhill, L.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Henley, L.

  Wise, L.

  Hives, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.18 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 3, line 24, at end insert:
  ("(10) SNH shall have powers to designate Marine Protected Areas.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment in order to ask the Minister what are the Government's intentions on marine conservation. I believe that the existing arrangements are inadequate. Scotland still has no marine nature reserves after many years of negotiations. The existing informal arrangements for the identification of non-statutory marine conservation areas have proved ineffective, basically due to the lack of statutory backing.
  An environment White Paper entitled, This Common Inheritance, gave little indication of the Government's intention, though I believe there was a suggestion by Mr. Trippier in another place that proposals would shortly be put forward. I tabled the amendment to inquire of the Government what is their view for a Scottish provision in that respect. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we believe that the best solution to the problem of marine conservation lies in the review currently being undertaken in this

  781
  area, as was made clear in the White Paper. We would hope that work on the review would progress with some speed, but I trust your Lordships will accept that it would be wrong to pre-empt the findings of the review since much detailed and valuable work will doubtless go into it. Any recommendations of the review will, of course, be directed at government, but could also be of relevance to the work of SNH in the future. I might have hoped that noble Lords would have accepted this point when I made it in Committee rather than press it now, but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would like to know more.
  No one doubts the need for protection of the marine environment, but to develop a specific designation, as the amendment proposes, when a review of marine conservation legislation is promised and consideration is being given to statutory protection of one area and the extension of informal consultation procedures in England and Wales is, in the Government's view, unjustified.
  I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he could say when the review is likely to be completed, if it has started; or started if it has not yet begun.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not able to shed any light on when the review will be complete. As on all matters which the Government take as seriously as they do the environment, they will conclude the review as speedily as possible. It is a complicated issue and we need to ensure that we are right. However, the review will be carried forward as quickly as possible. When we obtain the results we can take the situation further.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. However, I did not understand whether new legislation would be required or new amendments would be needed to set up a Scottish marine conservation organisation. It is slightly more difficult for the Minister to respond at this Report stage. Perhaps he will consider my remarks and pass them on to another place. I am reasonably satisfied with his statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 [Development projects or schemes]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 25:
  Page 3, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: The Goverment's objective is that Scottish Natural Heritage should be more than an advisory body. I expect that it will form partnerships and companies to help carry forward actions. Clause 5 provides SNH with the statutory backing to set up and run projects either land or subject based.
  If Scottish Natural Heritage is to make the best use of projects and is to develop an integrated programme of action on the ground with others, it should be enabled to set up and run projects whenever and
  782
  wherever they are needed. Clause 5(2) restricts SNH to projects which are both experimental and demonstrational. That surely is not right. It should have the power to set up and undertake, either by itself or with partners, any project which seems to be appropriate to achieving its objects, whether or not it has an obvious demonstrational role. By leaving out subsection (2) the amendment allows SNH an unrestricted hand in formulating and implementing ideas or projects which promote positive conservation, landscape enhancement and improved recreational provisions. With that relaxation, and considering that the Secretary of State will still have a great deal of power, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I remain convinced that what we are proposing is appropriate for SNH. The intention is that such schemes which could be undertaken under the provisions of the clause should be able to demonstrate new approaches to natural heritage issues. The provision in the 1967 Act was drafted in that way to emphasise the role of the Countryside Commission for Scotland as a leader of practice in countryside projects. The' amendment would remove the emphasis on experimentation and creativity. That would be a considerable loss. We hope that the provision will encourage positive thinking to address situations in new and creative ways.
  Concern was expressed in Committee that SNH would be able to operate projects in green belts and in the countryside around towns. That is very much the kind of work the CCS was doing under the selfsame provision of the 1967 Act. There is nothing in Clause 5 as it stands to prevent SNH from carrying forward those valuable initiatives. Therefore the amendment is not needed to secure that state of affairs.
  Clause 5 is a sensible clause which will offer a wide set of opportunities to SNH to operate projects that will improve our natural heritage. I am content with the provisions as drafted. Subsection (2) provides the incentive for SNH to be innovative in approaching situations, which I am sure noble Lords will agree is an important consideration. The intention of the 1967 Act was that once a project had been approved it would be disposed of to a local authority or appropriate voluntary body or private enterprise, depending on the type of project. We believe that that intention still holds good. Furthermore, SNH should not be able to embark on a project again once it has tried it out, as could be the case if subsection (2) were dropped. It is for others to follow the pattern set by Scottish Natural Heritage in relation to those projects.
  For those reasons I am unable to accept the amendment. I hope that in the light of what I explained in some detail regarding the purposes of the clause the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will see their worth.
  Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can help me. I am sure he can. I do not understand what is meant in subsections 2(a) and 2(b). Quite frankly, I do not understand those two paragraphs. Perhaps the noble Lord can help me by giving an explanation as to what they truly mean. I do

  783
  not believe that they mean very much as they stand. They are certainly capable of any number of interpretations, depending on one's viewpoint. I am not seeking to gain a political point, though I often do so. For once, this is a straightforward question. If the noble Lord cannot answer at this stage, perhaps he will write to me.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the essence of the clause is to allow Scottish Natural Heritage to define the purposes of development projects and schemes, and hence allow such projects or schemes to be used in whatever way Scottish Natural Heritage considers achieves the conservation and enchancement of, or fosters the enjoyment and understanding of, the natural heritage of Scotland. The noble Lord may say that he does not understand what that means.
  Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, does the Minister?
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course. I have lived with the Bill for some time. Subsection (2) requires that such proposals must either involve new or developed methods, concepts or techniques, or serve to demonstrate the appropriateness of the project to the area concerned. As the leading body with responsibility for the natural heritage, SNH will be able to develop new ideas for prototype development schemes. SNH should be encouraged to identify new solutions to problems and this is the means by which it will do so.
  I think that the noble Lord is looking for a specific example. Let us suppose that there was a proposal to create a forest outside an urban area. Clearly, it would have a role in developing that area and would be obliged to use the most up-to-date techniques to make sure that the development was as efficient and effective as possible. This provision gives that role and it is a very sensible one.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister's example was much clearer than the earlier explanation that he gave. He seems to suggest that there will be a restriction to pump-priming only. I understood the provision to mean that the body would be unable to get involved for too long and as soon as the development became viable it would be handed over to some other body. I assume that the scheme will be handed over to a commercial body already operating in the development of the scheme. There are problems in that a bottomless purse may be given to provide development if there is anything more than just an experimental scheme.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. Perhaps it is the case with most Bills that the more one reads them the wider the interpretation one can give them. I am not sure whether the Minister's explanation will be worth looking at with a view to doing something at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 30:
  Page 4, line 15, leave out ("may be registered").
  784
  Page 4, leave out line 17 and insert ("the Land Register of Scotland, may be registered in that register").
  Page 4, line 18, after ("case,") insert ("may be recorded").
  Page 4, line 20, after ("so") insert ("registered or").
  Page 4, line 25, at end insert ("registered or").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving these amendments I shall speak also to Amendment No. 38. They are minor technical amendments to improve the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Powers of entry]:
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 5, line 10, leave out ("seven") and insert ("twenty-one").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that the Government are not aware of any problem arising over the years with the present notice of seven days. That does not mean that problems have not arisen. Between weekends, public holidays and the deficiencies of the postal service in many parts of Scotland, I do not consider seven days to be fair notice. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, thought that 28 days was too long. I am now suggesting 21 days.
  In regard to the argument that if the notice were too long a proposed SSSI might be damaged or destroyed, it would surely be possible for the notice to demand that all development be frozen until the question of whether the proposed site was to be designated had been resolved. I cannot accept either that the occupier is the person most affected by a notice to be served and that an occupier or tenant will not necessarily inform the owner. I accept that owners are not always easily found, but the duty to try should surely be written into the Bill. Clause 23 provides an admirably simple method for serving documents on people whose addresses cannot be ascertained.
  At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said that the Government were proposing to introduce amendments into Clause 6 to bring it into line with Clauses 16 and 20. Those amendments will be welcome. Can the noble Lord say at what stage it is proposed to introduce them? Sadly, they have not yet appeared, but they will not make my amendments unnecessary concerning Clause 6. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, at Committee stage when we were dealing with the question of the time in which it is reasonable to give notification, I believe the feeling was that seven days was far too short a period to be satisfactory and that the owner or occupier could easily be absent over this period. Even if he were not absent, with postal delays being what they are in the Scottish Highlands it could well take the better part of a week for notification to arrive. However, at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Strathclyde was probably right to object that our proposal to give 28 days for notification was rather too long. That is why we currently propose 21 days, which I think is a satisfactory balance. I hope that my noble friend will look on this amendment sympathetically.

  785
  Amendment No. 32 asks that, where possible, the owner should be notified in addition to the occupier. At Committee stage my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made two valid points. He said that it could often be difficult to find out who the owner was, let alone contact him. Therefore, if this provision that the owner had always to be contacted were written into the Bill that might well take up a disproportionate amount of the time of the SNH. He also said that he hoped that the occupier would always pass on the information to the owner in any event.
  At Committee stage the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that she thought it unlikely that the occupier would always pass on the information and she is quite right. The wording of this amendment says "where possible", which means of course that if the owner really were to be difficult to contact there is no obligation on the SNH to alert him. As a result, I think it would be well worthwhile to write the wording of Amendment No. 32 into the Bill.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in Committee I explained that I had some sympathy with these amendments and that I intended to bring forward amendments which would rationalise different powers of entry within the Bill and correct any related technical anomalies that there might be. I said at that time that such amendments would be put forward at Report stage. This is clearly an important issue. Therefore, I felt obliged to consult interested parties, especially on the points raised in Committee. As a result, it has not proved possible to have such amendments finalised in the short time available.
  I realise that this is a subject to which the House in general, and the noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Dundee in particular, attach considerable importance. It is all the more necessary that we get this provision absolutely right. That will take longer than I had expected. I am sure that noble Lords, rather than have me repeat now the arguments raised in Committee, would prefer to wait for the government amendments to be brought forward before debating the matter again. Subject to satisfactory completion of the consultations with interested parties I hope to be able to bring forward suitable amendments at Third Reading. In the circumstances, I trust that the noble Lady will withdraw her amendment.
  I do not think that I have given quite enough to enable the noble Lady to do that. I listened very carefully to the arguments that were put forward in favour of 21 days' notice. I do not consider that such a long period is necessary. However, I am prepared to consider extending the period of notice from seven to 14 days. I hope that with that promise the noble Lady will feel that her amendment can be withdrawn. As regards the serving of notice on owners, I am very pleased that the noble Lady has come forward with a slightly improved amendment by stating:
  "and, where possible the owner".
  I shall take that provision fully into account in considering amendments to this clause. Perhaps she
  786
  will leave the matter with me so that I can bring forward a provision that will satisfy her and my noble friend Lord Dundee on the issues of days and owners.
  The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to hear my noble friend at least conceding something to the noble Lady. But the position is much worse than he is prepared to admit. You can usually walk into somewhere and ask, "Do you mind if I have a look at this and that?" and there is no difficulty. But in this case you write a letter and what have you then? You demand admission as of right, as of law, and if you are stopped you can probably call the police and demand to go in. Twenty-one days is in no way unreasonable. If someone is objectionable, there are all sorts of ways of coping. But to cut down the time to 14 days and think you have won a victory is sheer nonsense. This power is to be used very rarely.
  Speaking in the interests of this body, they want to be popular people. They do not want to throw their weight about in the community. That is usually unnecessary. In 21 days, all sorts of things can happen. You may be on holiday or a letter may be lost in the post, which is not unusual. I think that, for once, my noble friend should take a sensible view on this subject.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend uses very strong words. The provision of seven days has been in legislation for many years, and as I said in Committee, has not given rise to any great problems at all. I believe that there have been fewer than half a dozen complaints over the past 10 years. In fact, I have received information that in the past 10 years the Countryside Commission for Scotland has never requested the power of entry which my noble friend is complaining about. It is very difficult to decide whether the time should be 21 days or 14 days. What I have conceded—and it is a genuine concession on the part of the Government, and demonstrates understanding of what the noble Lady said—is that seven days is too short. I have said that I will bring something forward about 14 days.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the most one can ever hope for in moving amendments in this House is to have the spirit of one's amendments taken on board, for they are invariably defective or have something the matter with them. I am therefore almost dumbfounded by the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in conceding the spirit of these two points.
  When I first suggested 28 days, I did so rather as a carpet seller might demand at least twice the price that he expected to get for the carpet, with the full intention of being prepared to bargain and to settle for a considerably lower price in the end. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
  Clause 10 [Directions by Secretary of State]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 7, line 21, after ("functions") insert ("other than those functions previously discharged by the Nature Conservancy

  787
  Council for Scotland under the Acts amended by Schedule 2 to this Act and as are assigned to it in accordance with the amendments effected by that Schedule,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that during the Committee stage I put down an amendment with the same purpose as this one. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, accepted the principle of the amendment and gave an assurance that Scottish Natural Heritage would have,
  "exactly the same relationship with the Secretary of State as its sister bodies in England and Wales".—[Official Report, 3/12/90: col. 73.]
  The Minister also undertook to,
  "bring forward an amendment to ensure that powers of direction apply equally to Scottish, English and Welsh bodies in relation to their nature conservation functions". —[Col. 73.]
  This amendment is based on the provision applying to the new Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and it will ensure that the powers of direction apply equally to Scottish Natural Heritage. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this amendment is indeed in accordance with our policy on this matter, and the Government will bring forward an amendment to this effect, hopefully on Third Reading. In the circumstances, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 34:
  After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:

  Access to open country
  (" . Part II of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule (Access to open country) to this Act to enable SNH to enter into access agreements or to make access orders under that Part of that Act.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 46 to 51. These amendments will extend to SNH the powers presently available only to planning authorities to enter into access agreements or make access orders. I gave your Lordships notice of the Government's intention to introduce them during the debate on the access role of the SNH in Committee. These amendments meet the commitment made by Government in the consultation paper, Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead to make such powers available to SNH.
  I should make it clear that these amendments, although extensive, do not alter the substance of Part II of the 1967 Act at all. They simply extend to Scottish Natural Heritage powers currently available to planning authorities. These powers are not available to the Countryside Commission for Scotland at present and it is for this reason that I said earlier that SNH will have wider powers in relation to access than CCS has at the moment.
  Overall, these amendments serve to demonstrate the Government's commitment to extend to SNH the
  788
  statutory provisions for access to open country, and that this area will be an important aspect of its operations. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Dissolution of bodies]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 7, line 48, at end insert:
  ("(6) Every minister, government department and public body, in exercising their functions, must take all practicable steps to ensure the preservation of biological diversity, the avoidance of damage to ecosystems and the sustainable use of resources with due regard to the advice of SNH.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the responsibilities of other agencies and departments towards the environment are covered by so-called "balancing duties" contained in the relevant legislation. However, these duties are expressed in language which many people would find to be outdated; for example,
  "to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside".
  Also, these duties are expressed in a different form in different Acts, and it is time that they were drawn together and modernised to reflect statements of government policy contained in the Environment White Paper and in Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead. This is meant to be a helpful, if perhaps fussy, amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, noble Lords will recall the ground that we covered in relation to the "balancing duty" in Committee. By dint of these amendments to Section 66 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967, Schedule 9, paragraph 3(7), the balancing duty provision will read:
  "In the exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister, government department and public body shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural heritage of Scotland within the meaning of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991".
  The duty as proposed by this amendment, while I have some sympathy with it, could not be considered at all practical, efficient or indeed feasible. To require all government departments and public bodies to operate in accordance with such a duty might require an immense amount of effort at the outset, in order that they should have any hope of operating it at all. The wording of it would not be readily understandable to a great number of individuals, and so a large staff training effort would be required for the bodies concerned. It is surely not reasonable to expect that the body should have to consider all potential indirect consequences of a particular action; some actions may precipitate a chain of events where the last event could not possibly be predicted. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that no body could be expected to guess such outcomes.
  The amendment also fails to recognise that a duty in keeping with the aspirations underlying this amendment is already on the statute book. All Ministers, departments and public bodies will therefore have such aspirations in mind in carrying

  789
  out their functions. I therefore doubt the need for such a wide-ranging and indeterminate duty to be placed on all the parties.
  Therefore, there is no practical basis for this amendment to operate on and I accordingly trust that the noble Lord will withdraw it. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, may think that I am being too damning. But we have looked carefully at the amendment. I have some sympathy with it, but it just will not work.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as the Minister replied, I began to realise how difficult it would be for him to accept the amendment. He then began to say that what is proposed in the amendment is being done already. He should look at his brief and recognise that there are contradictions in what he said. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 36:
  Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause:

  Duties in relation to management of water resources.
  —(1) It shall be the duty of each of the following, that is to say, the Secretary of State, every river purification authority, every local authority and every water authority, when formulating or considering any proposals relating to the management of water resources in Scotland, to exercise any power conferred on him or it with respect to the proposals so as to further the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent upon an aquatic environment.
  (2) In this section—
  "local authority" means a local authority within the meaning of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968; and
  "water authority" means a water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will place a requirement on the Secretary of State and the various bodies involved in the management of water resources in Scotland to manage water resources in a way which is conducive to the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on an aquatic environment. What objections can the Minister have to the principle of the amendment? It looks fearsome but it is quite simple. I hope that the Minister will accept it or will at least take it away and consider it. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, perhaps I may first reply to the question raised in Committee on 3rd December by my noble friend Lord Elton. He asked whether an abstraction control order could be made for the sole purpose of protecting flora and fauna. I am happy to be able to report that, where the conservation of water resources is considered necessary to protect these interests, then the Bill as drafted enables an order to be made. I can therefore confirm that the amendments tabled in Committee, and equally the amendment tabled for today by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would not be necessary as regards control of abstractions for irrigation. However, I quite understand that the present amendment is intended to go much wider than abstractions for irrigation in that it relates to any matters concerned with,
  "the management of water resources in Scotland".
  790
  I also understand and am aware of noble Lords' concern on this point. As I said in Committee, we firmly endorse the importance of protecting flora and fauna since that is one of the principal concerns of the Bill as a whole. I am aware too of the concern which has been expressed over the years since the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 conferred an equivalent duty to conserve flora and fauna, as well as other duties, on the then water authorities in England and Wales. Since the passing of the 1981 Act, my department has exhorted the Scottish water and sewerage authorities and the RPAs to further wherever possible the conservation of flora and fauna and to consult the NCC. So far as we know, from the absence of any complaints to us, our authorities have responded appropriately.
  We have always maintained therefore that such an explicit duty appears unnecessary. But we do not want to appear to be resisting the idea of protecting flora and fauna, since that is far from being our intention. Indeed the consultation paper Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead contained a commitment by Ministers that all agencies involved in land use and development should have regard to achieving a reasonable balance between their duties and the conservation and enhancement of the natural heritage. The amendment, however, embodies a major new proposal which would not only require, but would deserve, wide consultation with the many interests which would be affected by such a new duty. It does, after all, go much wider than the purposes of this part of the Bill, and could well have financial and manpower implications.
  I am therefore willing, bearing in mind the concern and interest on this point, and subject to the withdrawal of the amendment, to initiate a consultation exercise on the possibility of a new general duty. In carrying out the consultation, we would aim to complete it in time for any decision in favour of legislative amendment to be reflected in the Bill.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we have another example of the perfection of drafting, which I am sure will please the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, who has had a good deal of experience of Bills. The noble Lord's explanation was lengthy. I am sure he will accept that I shall have to consider what he has said. I may have to raise the matter again or at least refer it to my colleagues in another place who may have something to say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Mills Viscount Mills moved Amendment No. 37:
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:

  Water Resource Management.
  .—(1) River purification authorities shall advise the Regional Councils and Forestry Commission upon the siting of afforestation in order to protect water resources in Scotland.
  (2) Where, following advice from the relevant river purification authority, the Forestry Commission intends to approve a planting grant application which will lead to a significant deterioration in water resources, the river purification authority may request, and the Forestry

  791
  Commission shall comply, that the planting granting application is referred to the relevant regional forestry advisory committee and the river purification authority may make such representation as it considers desirable to the Forestry Minister.
  (3) In this section "water resources" means the quantity and quality of water available for domestic, agricultural, industrial, fisheries and nature conservation uses.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee I said that this amendment was necessary in order to increase the ability of the river purification authorities to fulfil their present duties of promoting the cleanliness of rivers and conserving water resources. My noble friend the Minister responded by stating that:
  "the Forestry Commission presently operates a very effective consultation arrangement over plans for afforestation. The effect of those arrangements is that the Forestry Commission consults the relevant local authority on every new planting scheme of any consequence".
  He went on to say:
  "I should expect the local authority to seek the views of the river purification authority".—[Official Report, 3/12/90; col. 80.]
  He concluded by saying that the consultation arrangements are very tough.
  I cannot accept that the consultation arrangements are very tough because the Forestry Commission is not required to consult directly with the river purification authorities. I have consulted three river purification authorities in quite separate areas of Scotland; namely, the Solway, the Highland and north-eastern regions. They would support the proposed amendment because in their opinion it would increase their ability to prevent the possibility of proposed forestry plantations adversely affecting water resources.
  Perhaps I may give an example of where quite obviously a river purification board recognises a water quality problem associated with afforestation but has not been in a position to prevent it. The Solway purification board's annual report for 1989 reported that:
  "In 1989 the Cree and Fleet rivers failed the PH requirement of the EC fresh water fisheries directive throughout their catchments".
  The report went on to say:
  "The directive also expects authorities to make improvements to ensure that quality standards are met, but such improvements are outwith the scope of the board for this particular problem. Forestry has been implicated in the increased acidification of some upland waters, and more land is being planted in these sensitive areas".
  This does not suggest to me that the present liaison arrangements are always satisfactory. My discussions with other river purification boards indicated that, as well as increased acidification, increased phosphorous levels in streams due to forestry fertiliser application, increased torpidity, and in local areas effects on flow patterns and total run off, were all problems associated with forestry development.
  The Minister also said in Committee:
  "There are no problems about water resource in Scotland; there is an awful lot of it".—[Official Report, 3/12/90; col. 81.]
  792
  I would accept that in many parts of Scotland high rainfall and low population density means that water shortages are infrequent. However, there are considerable differences in both rainfall pattern and the demand for water in different parts of Scotland. For example, in parts of the Grampian region on the drier east coast of Scotland, abstraction is increasing, and so also is the need for water conservation. Allowance has also to be made for exceptional conditions. Indeed, Part III of the Bill contains measures to allow for the provision of drought orders in Scotland. Despite the fact that Scotland is generally an area of high rainfall, afforestation can have significant effects on water resources, particularly by affecting water quality and flow patterns.
  I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider the proposed amendment as a positive contribution. I consider, as do the river purification boards I have consulted, that the proposed amendment would improve on present liaison arrangements. It would also support government acceptance that it is essential to watch for changes in land use which may damage water sources.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to express my support for this amendment and cast some doubt on what my noble friend the Minister said in Committee on 3rd December about the efficiency of the Forestry Commission's present consultation arrangements. I propose to do so by giving your Lordships another example of where the consultation arrangements over plans for afforestation do not seem to have had the desired effect. I am afraid that I must again declare an interest because the story concerns my own water supply and that of the small village in which I live.
  By 1984 the Forestry Commission had drained and planted about half the catchment area for the burn —or stream, for those who may not be familiar with the word—which supplies our village. This burn has never run dry in living memory. It may be that that first swathe of planting would have been enough to exhaust the burn in dry weather in a few years' time when the trees have grown a bit. But we certainly did not want the Forestry Commission to drain and plant the rest of the catchment area. So I wrote to the commission in 1984 and asked it to agree that any further planting would be inappropriate. I received no satisfactory reply, and so my lawyers wrote in 1985 on behalf of myself and the village. We were told that the commission was aware of the position.
  In 1985 the commission sold one of its houses in the village. The purchaser wrote to the commission in 1986 to ask for its confirmation that his water supply was not about to be removed by the commission's further planting of the catchment area. The commission replied:
  "If and when further planting is to take place in the area, due regard will be given to the water supply and your rights to it".
  That is the last any of us heard until the ploughs moved in this year to drain most of the rest of the catchment area. It is now also largely planted.

  793
  My solicitors have advised me that there is nothing we can do until the water supply actually dries up. Then, if we can show that millions of trees have drunk it, we would be able to claim compensation. Even though trees are notoriously thirsty creatures when they get to about 30 feet or so, we have been advised that it may not be easy to prove the case because water flow charts of the burn in question, going back over time, do not exist, of course.
  When I heard my noble friend the Minister give assurances to my noble friend Lord Mills in Committee, I thought that I had better discover how these wonderful consultation procedures had actually worked in our case—or not worked, as it would seem. I received a reply from the local Forestry Commission conservator last night. He confirms that the commission did indeed consult with the local authority. The local authority made a number of observations about the shape of the area, the species mixture of the trees, the need to keep conifers back from the burn, which is our water supply, and the desirability of planting some native broadleaves for landscaping and conservation reasons. The conser-vator assures me that subsequent planting has taken these views into account.
  I do not know whether the local authority considered, or was asked to consider, or was competent to consider if it was asked to consider, whether the new planting would eventually remove our water supply in dry weather. But I can tell your Lordships that it never consulted with anyone locally at all, let alone widely.
  I have to say that the burn in question has not yet quite run dry, but I would have thought that it most certainly must when the trees are a few years older. I suppose that we shall then proceed along the dreary road to seek compensation, whatever that may be. It is not easy to see how one can be compensated adequately for the removal of the water supply of an entire village, but there it is.
  I know that that is a small example but I hope that it throws some doubt on whether the consultation procedures are working as well as they ought. That is why I support the amendment.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, as I mentioned when this question was raised in Committee, there is already in place a consultation procedure over plans for afforestation. The Forestry Commission is under direction of the Secretary of State to consult with local authorities on every new planting scheme of any consequence and the local authorities, in turn, consult with wider interests including RPAs where appropriate. The consultation procedure has been found to work effectively in the past and the proposal to require statutory consultation with river purification authorities seems overly bureaucratic.
  However, I listened closely to what my noble friends said. I am sorry to hear about the particular problems of my noble friend Lord Pearson. In the light of that, I am willing, if my noble friends will agree to withdraw their amendment at this stage, to look
  794
  more closely at the whole question of compensation. I am aware of the concerns about the effects of planting on water quality and I certainly wish to ensure that the system of consultation is as effective as possible and covers all the relevant stages of planning for, and management of, forestry development. Should it prove necessary to make any improvements to procedures, these would certainly have a high priority. In view of that commitment to my noble friends, I hope that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Viscount Mills: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments. In view of his assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 24 [Offences by persons other than natural persons]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 18, line 29, after ("of") insert ("or to be attributable to the negligence of").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Constitution and proceedings of Scottish Natural Heritage]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 20, line 20, at end insert ("which shall be—

  (a) the conservation and enhancement of,

  (b) the fostering of the understanding and the facilitating of the enjoyment of, and

  (c) the promotion of access to and the pursuit of physical recreation in relation to,

  the natural heritage of Scotland.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a brief amendment. The purpose is to ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage has a clear responsibility to discharge a major function of one of its predecessor organisations; namely, the Countryside Commission for Scotland. As the Minister will be aware, it is sponsored by the Scottish Sports Council which is concerned that it may be forgotten and that the thousands of sportsmen who use the Scottish hills, land and countryside may be treated less well by the new body than was the case under the old one. I beg to move.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment do not add much to the Bill as they repeat provisions already clearly spelled out in Clause 1. Subparagraph (c) refers to access. I have already made it clear that there is no need to highlight this aspect of SNH's general aims and purposes as it is covered under the phrase "facilitating the enjoyment". The amendment is also unnecessary in the light of the extensive amendments I have tabled on access agreements and orders.
  The reference to,
  "the pursuit of physical recreation"
  is a more subtle attempt to accommodate the wish of the Scottish Sport Council to see that subject represented on SNH. This is quite clearly ground

  795
  which we covered in Committee. I do not wish to go over old ground. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 2 [Amendment of Enactments conferring nature conservation functions]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 24, line 20, after ("time") insert ("to time").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.

  Schedule Access to Open Country
  1. Part II of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (access to open country) shall be amended as follows.
  2. In section 10, in subsection (2) (definition of "open country') after the words "any land appearing" there shall he inserted the words "to Scottish Natural Heritage or".
  3.—(l) Section 13 (making of access agreements) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(1) An access agreement may be made—

  (a) by Scottish Natural Heritage with any person having an interest in land;

  (b) by a general or district planning authority with any person having an interest in land situated in the area of the authority,

  whereby the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to access agreements shall apply to the land."
  (3) In subsection (2) after the words "payments by" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".
  (4) In subsection (7) after the words "confer any right against him, and" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".
  4.—(1) Section 14 (making of access orders) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, an access order may be made—

  (a) by Scottish Natural Heritage, as regards any land in Scotland;

  (b) by a general or district planning authority, as regards any land in their area,

  but an order so made shall be submitted to the Secretary of State and shall not have effect unless confirmed by him."
  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) in paragraph (a) for the word "authority" there shall be substituted the word "body"; and

  (b) in paragraph (b) for the words "said authority" there shall be substituted the word "body".

  (4) In subsection (3) for the words "said authority" there shall be substituted the word "body".
  (5) In subsection (8) after the word "order" there shall be inserted the words "made by a general or district planning authority".
  5.—(1) Section 15 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2)—

  (a) in paragraph (a)—

  (i) for the words "authority by whom" there shall be substituted the words "body by which"; and

  (ii) for the word "authority" where it second occurs there shall be substituted the word "body"; and

  (b) in paragraph (c) for the words "said authority" and "authority" where they respectively occur there shall be substituted the word "body".

  (3) In subsection (3) the words "(whether made by the Secretary of State or by a local planning authority)" shall be omitted.
  (4) In subsection (4)—

  (a) after the words "Secretary of State" where they first occur, there shall be inserted the words ", except as regards an access order made by Scottish Natural Heritage,"; and

  (b) for the words "the local planning authority concerned" there shall be substituted the words "the body by which the order was made".

  6. In section 16, for subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
  "(5) As soon as practicable after an agreement or instrument such as is mentioned in subsection (4) above is made or an order so mentioned is confirmed, it shall be registered or, as the case may be, recorded in pursuance of subsection (6) or (7) below.
  (6) In the case of an agreement or order made by Scottish Natural Heritage or an instrument or order varying or revoking such an agreement or order—

  (a) if an interest in the land to which the agreement, instrument or order relates falls to be registered in the Land Register of Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage shall cause the agreement, instrument or order to be registered in that register;

  (b) in any other case it shall cause the agreement, instrument or order to be recorded in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

  (7) In the case of an agreement or order made by the general or district planning authority or an instrument or order varying or revoking such an agreement or order—

  (a) if an interest in the land to which the agreement, instrument or order relates falls to be registered in the Land Register of Scotland, the general or district planning authority shall cause the agreement, instrument or order to be registered in that register;

  (b) in any other case they shall cause the agreement, instrument or order to be recorded in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines.

  (8) Subject to subsection (9) below, an agreement, instrument or order registered or recorded in pursuance of subsection (6) or, as the case may be, subsection (7) above shall be enforceable at the instance of respectively Scottish Natural Heritage or the general or district planning authority against persons deriving title to the land or the relevant interest therein from the person so entitled when the agreement, instrument or order was made.
  (9) An agreement, instrument or order shall not be enforceable as mentioned in subsection (8) above against

  797
  a third party who has in good faith and for value acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land or to the relevant interest therein prior to the agreement, instrument or order being registered or, as the case may be, recorded in pursuance of subsection (6) or (7) above, or against any person deriving title from such third party.
  (10) In this section "relevant interest" means an interest which is subject to an agreement, instrument or order such as is mentioned in subsection (4) above."
  7.—(1) Section 17 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4)—

  (a) for the words from the beginning to "situated" there shall be substituted the words "Where, as regards any access agreement or order made by Scottish Natural Heritage or a general or district planning authority, it appears to it or them";

  (b) for the words "an access" there shall he substituted the word "the";

  (c) after the words "subsection (2) above," there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,"; and

  (d) for the words "the authority" where they second occur there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or the authority, it or, as the case may be, they".

  (3) In subsection (5)—

  (a) for the words "the local planning authority" in both places where they occur there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority";

  (b) after the words "fourteen days' notice of" there shall be inserted the words "its or";

  (c) before the words "the authority" in both places where they occur there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,";

  (d) after the words "reasonably incurred by" there shall be inserted the words "it or";

  (e) after the words "reduced by" there shall be inserted the words "its or"; and

  (f) for the words "authority's contribution" there shall be substituted the words "contribution of Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the authority".

  8.—(1) Section 18 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) for the words from "the last foregoing section" to the words "contravention occurred" there shall be substituted the words "section 17 of this Act—

  (a) if the agreement or order was made by Scottish Natural Heritage, it;

  (b) if the agreement or order was made by the general or district planning authority, they,";

  (b) after the words "as may appear to" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".

  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for the words "the local planning authority" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority"; and

  (b) before the word "them" there shall be substituted the words "it or".

  9.—(1) Section 20 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For the words from "the general or district" to "situated" there shall be substituted the words "—
  798

  (a) where the order was made by Scottish Natural Heritage, it; or

  (b) where the order was made by a general or district planning authority, they,",

  and the words from the beginning of the section to the words "depreciation or damage" shall become subsection (1) of the section.
  (3) In the proviso the words "Provided that" shall be omitted and the remaining words of the proviso shall become subsection (2) of the section.
  10.—(1) Section 22 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) for the words "local planning authority by whom" there shall be substituted the words "body by which"; and

  (b) for the word "authority" there shall be substituted the word "body".

  (3) In subsection (3) for the words "local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "body by which compensation is payable".
  11.—(1) Section 23 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) for the words "local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "body by which compensation is payable";

  (b) for the words "authority are" there shall be substituted the words "body is"; and

  (c) for the word "they" in both places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "it".

  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for the words "local planning authority" and the word "authority" where they respectively occur there shall be substituted the word "body";

  (b) for the word "their" there shall be substituted the word "its"; and

  (c) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the word "it".

  12.—(1) Section 24 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) after the words "Where it appears" there shall be inserted the words "to Scottish Natural Heritage as respects any land in Scotland or";

  (b) in paragraph (b) for the words "the local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority"; and

  (c) before the words "the authority" in both places where they occur there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".

  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for the words "A local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, a general or district planning authority";

  (b) before the word "them" in each place where it occurs there shall be inserted the words "it or"; and

  (c) before the word "they" there shall be inserted the words "it or".

  (4) In subsection (3)—

  (a) for the words "a local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, a general or district planning authority";

  (b) before the word "them" there shall be inserted the words "it or"; and

  799

  (c) before the words "the authority" in each place where they occur there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or".

  13. In section 26 at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(3) Scottish Natural Heritage shall, within 14 days of—

  (a) an access agreement having been made by it; or

  (b) an access order made by it having been confirmed,

  send to the general or district planning authority in whose area the land to which the agreement or order applies is situated a copy of such agreement or order."
  14.—(1) Section 27 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) for the word "authority" in each place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "body".
  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for the words "authority by whom" there shall be substituted the words "body by which"; and

  (b) for the word "authority" where it second occurs there shall be substituted the word "body".

  (4) In subsection (3) for the words "said authority" in each place where they occur there shall be substituted the word "body".
  (5) In subsection (4)—

  (a) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,";

  (b) before the words "the authority" there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or"; and

  (c) before the word "them" there shall be inserted the words "it or".

  (6) In subsection (5) for the words from "a local planning authority" to the end there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or a general or district planning authority as respects land held by it or them".
  15.—(l) In section 28—

  (a) for the words "A general or district planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Where Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, a general or district planning authority have made an access agreement or order it or they"; and

  (b) after the words "comprised in" there shall be inserted the word "such".

  16.—(1) Section 29 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) At the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be,".
  (3) The words "in their area" shall be omitted.
  (4) After the word "order" there shall be inserted the words "made by it or them".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it is possible that the Minister did not hear what I said earlier in connection with this amendment. It was discussed along with a number of other amendments. I asked whether we would be receiving explanatory Notes on Clauses in respect of this rather important six-page schedule.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall furnish the noble Lord with an explanation of this new schedule.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Provisions as to applications for, variation, revocation and transfer of licences under Part II]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 31, line 23, leave out ("the area") and insert ("that part of the control area which includes the waters").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment clarifies the requirement on applicants for variation of a licence, and late applicants for a licence, to publish a notice of their application in a newspaper circulating in the area of the waters affected by the licence. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Further provisions regarding drought orders]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 43 and 44:
  Page 32, line 43, leave out from ("shall") to ("(as") in line 45.
  Page 33, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert (",
  and shall take such other steps, if any, as they think appropriate for bringing the prohibition or limitation to the attention of the persons to whom the prohibition or limitation will apply; and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments clarify that the authority must in all cases either publish a notice in a newspaper or serve notice of the prohibitional limitation upon the persons affected. In addition, it must take any other steps it thinks appropriate to bring the prohibitional limitation to the notice of those affected. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Compensation in respect of drought orders]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 45:
  Page 37, line 11, after ("discharged") insert ("or").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment corrects a minor omission in paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 8. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Miscellaneous Amendments]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 46 to 50:
  Page 38, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert:
  ("(4) In section 54 for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection
  "(4) Scottish Natural Heritage may in relation to land—

  (a) owned or managed by it; or

  (b) to which an access agreement or order made by it applies,

  make byelaws with respect to any of the matters mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section."").
  Page 39, line 2, at end insert:
  ("() In subsection (3) of section 70 (application of provisions relating to compensation) for the word "authority" in the second place where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "body".").
  Page 39, line 2, at end insert:

  801
  ("() In Schedule 2, in paragraph (e) for the words "the local planning authority" there shall be substituted the words "Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority".").
  Page 39, line 2, at end insert:
  ("() Schedule 3 shall be amended as follows—

  (a) in paragraph 1(1)—

  (i) for the words "an authority make" there shall be substituted the words "a body makes"; and

  (ii) for the word "they" there shall be substituted the word "it";

  (b) in paragraph 4 for the word "authority" in the second and third places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "body".").

  Page 39, line 2, at end insert:
  ("() In Schedule 4 for sub-paragraph (2) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
  "(2) Before or as soon as possible after the coming into operation of an access agreement—

  (a) Scottish Natural Heritage, in relation to an agreement made by it; or

  (b) the general or district planning authority, in relation to an agreement made by them,

  shall agree with the owner of the interest in the land what proportion of the figure set by the district valuer should be paid by Scottish Natural Heritage or, as the case may be, the general or district planning authority in respect of each twelve month period."").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 51:

  Page 41, line 19, column 3, at end insert:

  ("In section 13, subsection (6).

  In section 14, subsection (6).

  In section 15(3), the words "(whether made by the Secretary of State or by a local planning authority)."")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 7.11 to 7.16 p.m.]

Local Election Voting Rights for EC Nationals
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the Council of Ministers towards agreement on the European Commission's proposal for a directive on voting rights for Community nationals in local elections in their member state of residence (Com. (88) 371, as amended by Com. (89) 524).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with some humility to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is only after your Lordships have adjourned for some short pleasure that I address you on this matter. I apologise for not having been in the
802
Chamber when I should have been. I am grateful to your Lordships for arranging the affairs of the House so that the Unstarred Question could nonetheless be heard. The Question is directed towards the Commission's proposals on voting rights and the right to stand in local elections for EC nationals resident in another member state. The purpose of the Question is, first, to ask Her Majesty's Government about the progress on that measure in the Council of Ministers; secondly, to draw attention to the Select Committee Report of 6th February this year and, for the first time in your Lordships' House, to have a debate upon it; and, thirdly, to probe further what is the Government's true case on this issue.
I also ask the Unstarred Question in the hope that the Government can be persuaded to take a fresh look at the matter. In a letter I sent earlier to the Minister, I asked him whether he would come with listening ears to this short debate. Perhaps I may mention that the Minister has a record as a good European and has spent no fewer than six years in the European Parliament. It was not the original intention of your Lordships' Select Committee to have a debate. It was prepared to rest its case upon the contents of its report; but regrettably I have to say that our Select Committee was disappointed in the quality of the Government's evidence before it and their response to the report.
Without being acrimonious, I should add that the Select Committee was also a little upset about the unfortunate delay in the Government's statement, in the form of an explanatory memorandum, on the Commission's revised proposals which deprived the Select Committee of comment upon it in its report, although the Government well knew that the Select Committee was considering the proposals and was about to report upon them.
The Commission's proposals are contained in draft directive (88) 371, as amended by draft directive (89) 124. I give the latter number because there is an error on the Order Paper. The principal feature of the proposals concerns the right of EC nationals to vote and to stand for local elections in member states other than their own. This is contained in Article 2.
As proposed, that right can be exercised only after application is successfully made for entry on the local electoral register, which must follow:
"A continuous period of residence in the host member state of not less than the term of office of a municipal council",
in that state. I refer to Article 4.
Concerning the right to stand for election, as proposed, this can only be exercised after continuous residence of not less than two terms of office of a municipal council. That is covered in Article 8.
As concerns other voting qualifications, for example minimum voting age, EC nationals are to be treated equally with the nationals of that member state. I refer to Article 5. Other measures are proposed in the draft directive, such as a mayor or deputy mayor may be restricted to the member state's nationals. I refer to Article 10(1). If members of the municipal council also act as electors for national parliaments, as

803
they do in some instances in France, nationals of other member states who have been elected to that municipal council cannot participate in that process. I refer t3 Article 10(2).
There are also transitional provisions. For example, there is a waiver when the proportion of EC nationals exceeds 20 per cent. of the total population of that member state. That was specifically included in the draft directive to cope with the situation in Luxembourg. It is covered in Article 11. Another transitional provision is that elected EC nationals cannot occupy over one quarter of the seats in a municipal council. That is to be found in Article 12.
The core of these proposals is that nationals of member states residing in another state who pay the local taxes, use its local facilities—roads, parks, schools, public swimming pools and so on—and participate in local affairs should have the right to vote and stand for election at a local level on matters of direct concern to them and for which they pay. Your Lordships may think that that proposition which, as I have just described, is the core of the proposals, is intrinsically fair.
The history of the matter goes back to the Paris Summit of December 1974 when there was a commitment made to the right of nationals to vote in local elections in other member states. There was also a most thoughtful report which may be described as a green paper which the Commission presented to the European Parliament in October 1986. There has been support for these proposals from the European Parliament which on two or three occasions has endorsed them. It also encouraged the Commission to enact them. There has also been support from all other member states except the United Kingdom and Germany. In the case of Germany there were special reasons. The position of the United Kingdom is a matter that we still seek to probe.
This proposal affects 5 million out of the 13 million non-nationals in the Community. In the United Kingdom it currently affects between 100,000 and 200,003 EC nationals living here, depending on whether the figure is based on the figure produced by the Commission, which is the 100,000, or that put forward by the Home Office, which is 200,000.
Your Lordships may wish to note the present United Kingdom voting rights at local elections. All United Kingdom citizens, including your Lordships, are allowed to participate in voting at local elections. All Ccmmonwealth citizens are entitled to do so, as are Irish citizens. There are 600,000 Irish nationals resident in the United Kingdom who have that right.
I would mention, in passing, that while the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in local and national elections is most welcome, it has to be noted that some come from far regions of the Commonwealth and are far more remote from the matters which concern us than, for example, many of the EC nationals who also reside in our country. Three member states—Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland—already have full voting rights for all foreign nationals.
The report of your Lordships' Select Committee, as is invariably the case, is a report of high quality. I do not say that to congratulate myself because, although I participated in the proceedings of the committee, I had nothing to do with the drafting of the report. It was left in the skilful hands of our good chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. I am grateful to him for his presence in the Chamber tonight. It was also in the good hands of our legal adviser and clerk.
In summary, your Lordships' Select Committee came down decisively in favour of the general principle of the draft directive but thought that some matters in it should receive further attention. For example, the voting rights of Irish citizens should be the same as those of other EC nationals. This point was misunderstood in the correspondence which was conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, with the Home Secretary. The committee did not recommend that Irish citizens should be deprived of any of their current voting rights. It merely made the point that they should line up with those of other EC nationals. To put it the other way round, the rights of EC nationals should be lined up with those of the Irish. For that and other reasons, we were brought to the recommendation that the residence requirements which I have outlined to your Lordships should be greatly simplified and that the qualifying period should be omitted altogether.
We agreed with the Government on the problem concerning a proper treaty base. In doing so we disputed that Article 235 of the EC Treaty provided a proper treaty base. We, with the Government, considered this to be most important and preferred that this measure should be brought in by way of resolution of the Council of Ministers in the same way as the European passport was introduced.
It has been hard for our Select Committee to ascertain the true position of the Government. It is clear that there is some hostility on the part of the Government on the issue. We were circulated with a newspaper report from the Daily Telegraph which wrote of,
"Ministers planning to stage a vigorous campaign against what they regarded as yet another example of Brussels' interference in the domestic politics of member states".
However, while it is not difficult to identify the hostility of the Government to these proposals, your Lordships' Select Committee has had considerable difficulty in establishing the constitutional basis, in the United Kingdom and the European Community, of the position which the Government appear thus far to have taken. I should therefore be most grateful if the Minister—to whom I referred earlier as a good European—could assist your Lordships' House by answering certain specific questions. I gave him notice of them, although I did not give a great deal of time.
The questions are as follows. First, what exactly are the Government's "reservations of principle" to which there is reference in the penultimate paragraph of the letter which the former Home Secretary, now the Leader of our House, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on 20th June 1990. Secondly, what do

805
the Government mean when they state, "This is a matter within national jurisdiction of member states". I refer to the fourth paragraph of the same letter.
To this end, do the Government propose that each member state should do its own thing? That does not seem to fit well with harmonisation between member states. Also, what is the practical application of this proposition from the Government? We can think, for example, of Spain giving local voting rights to French and Italian nationals but not to British nationals because there has been no agreement between the governments of Spain and Britain. Vice versa, suppose that there is a reciprocity agreement between Italy and the United Kingdom which gives rights to Italian nationals in Britain voting in local elections but not to others.
I mention this also because one of the reasons put forward by the Government against these proposals was the difficulty in organising the electoral register. If that is the situation and certain EC nationals on a reciprocation basis have rights in local elections here while others do not, I venture to suggest that system would create complications in the electoral register well beyond those posed by the Government.
Thirdly, what is the Government's position on the issue of public opinion? I refer to the sixth paragraph of this letter. Are the Government saying that there is hostile opinion on this issue, and if so where is it? If that is not the case, are the Government saying that there is no evidence of public support, and until there is they will oppose the measure?
Fourthly, on the differences in local electoral systems, are the Government saying that these are grounds for opposing this measure? I refer to paragraph seven of the letter dated 20th June. I do so because there is a sentence in paragraph seven in connection with differences in local electoral systems which refers to,
"a weakness of the proposal rather than a decisive obstacle".
What does that mean? The public opinion argument is perhaps the most intriguing of all. Originally the Government's position was that there was no public opinion in favour of this proposition. With it, there was a strong suggestion in the Government's evidence —which was not in any way substantiated—that public opinion was hostile to the proposition.
On 12th December your Lordships' Select Committee at a hearing attended by officials from the Home Office drew to the attention of witnesses the Euro-Barometer Survey carried out in December 1986. We had been told about that earlier by the Commission officials who gave evidence. Rather to our surprise, that was the first time that the officials from the Home Office had ever heard about the survey. The survey discovered that, taking the Community as a whole, 62 per cent. were in favour, in varying degrees, of the proposal.
It was further discovered that no less than 58 per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom were in favour in varying degrees of the proposal. What was the Government's response to that? It was not entirely
806
attractive. It downgraded the survey and said that it had taken place four years ago and questioned the quality of the questions in it. I refer to a letter that the Minister, Mr. Peter Lloyd, wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. The Minister in his letter took points in minutiae on the quality of the questions in the survey.
We then asked the Government whether there was reason to think that any change had occurred since the report was published four years ago. As far as I can ascertain, the Government have not replied to that question. I believe that there is a simple question that could be put to members of the public which, when questioned, would show that they were in favour of the proposal; this is the proposition that I spelt out in the earlier part of my speech. In any event, is it not a fact that this Government seek to lead public opinion on measures the Government favour, such as the curbing of union power, the sale of council houses, privatisation programmes and other such measures? The matter goes further than that. If there is no ascertainable opposition—for example, there are no threats to wreck polling stations or to scare EC nationals as they seek to exercise voting rights—why is it necessary to have to prove that public opinion is in favour of the proposal, particularly when the public has not been asked to think about it?
Those remarks are sufficient for an introduction to the matter at this time of night. There is, I believe, some light at the end of the tunnel. As I said in introducing this debate, our purpose is, among others, to ask the Government to give further consideration to this matter. The light at the end of the tunnel is the high respect which the Commission has for our Select Committee's report. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will remember, Dr. Taschner paid us a great compliment at the beginning of his evidence to us. Then there is the new Prime Minister, who has just been able to report positively on last week's summit in Rome. The letter writing of the former Home Secretary played no insignificant part in bringing about this debate. He has now joined your Lordships' House although he has not, alas, been present for the debate tonight.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for bringing this subject before your Lordships, and particularly for putting such sharp and relevant questions to my noble friend the Minister. The timing of this debate tonight is particularly useful. It has only recently been announced that the inter-governmental conference on political union which started on Sunday will have on its agenda an item dealing with European citizenship. Under that heading the subject of voting at local elections throughout member states will be raised. I hope that at the conclusion of this evening's discussion and after due consideration of the matter by the current Home Secretary, the Government will realise that they can be seen to be supporting something positive. The measure will do no harm to British subjects and will help many other British subjects living throughout the Community.

807
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has given a full analysis of the draft directive and the problems arising from this matter. I shall just touch on one or two other points which have perhaps not been enlarged upon sufficiently. The first concerns the people who will be affected by the measure. That ties in with what the former Home Secretary, the then David Waddington, wrote in his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on 20th June 1990. At page 28 of the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities entitled Correspondence With Ministers, the Home Secretary stated:
"More importantly still, as far as United Kingdom public opinion is concerned, there remains no evidence of any substantial public support for an extension of the franchise".
However, the people who were asked to give an opinion already had the franchise. Therefore there is no reason for them to ask for an extension of the franchise. Presumably it was the British electors who were asked whether they wanted the franchise extended.
The Government may have been afraid that there would be an ugly rush of foreigners coming in to benefit from voting in local elections in the United Kingdom. However, the number of British electors who vote in United Kingdom local elections is, even at a generous estimate, around 35 per cent., and often that figure is around 20 per cent. Therefore one can see that there will not be much enthusiasm for such voting in any case.
The idea of this ugly rush of foreigners coming in to benefit from the beautiful British local authority electoral system is not borne out by the statistics. The statistics show that not many European Community citizens are particularly keen on coming to the United Kingdom in any case. The number of European Community citizens coming to the United Kingdom under the heading "acceptances for settlement on arrival and on removal of time limit by nationality", amounted to 3,540 in 1981. In 1989 that number had dwindled to 1,190. Over the past 10 years a maximum of about 25,000 European Community citizens have come to settle in the United Kingdom. Should this directive go through, they would be entitled to vote in local elections. I understand that around 100,000 EC citizen5 would be affected as regards the United Kingdom. That leaves out approximately 450,000 Irish citizens who already have the right to vote in this country.
The other point I wish to press is the question of reciprocity. While the Government may not want to give foreign citizens rights in this country, let us remember that there are something like 600,000 British citizens resident abroad within other member states of the European Community. As the entire directive is based on reciprocity and would apply to all member states of the Community, the people who would benefit from this measure would be the 600,000 British subjects who are resident throughout the other member states of the Community. There are some 300,000 resident in Spain alone, I understand. They would benefit.
808
The situation is different for British Commonwealth citizens. Under the Representation of the People Act, British Commonwealth citizens have the right to vote in this country—even if they have only just arrived here by the due date for registration —without speaking the language, without any knowledge of the country and without necessarily staying longer than a year. So long as they have registered on the due date, which is usually in October, they have a right to vote. I understand that very few Commonwealth countries give reciprocal rights to British citizens.
The directive would give British citizens that right wherever they might be within the Community. It is reciprocity that I should like to stress and which I believe would be of benefit.
The Home Office, and in particular the new Home Secretary, should be encouraged to look positively at the draft directive. It will benefit 600,000 British subjects. It is an issue on which the British Government can be seen to take a positive attitude when no doubt they will stick on many other issues. I shall be grateful to my noble friend if he will impress on his right honourable friend the Home Secretary the views of this House expressed in this debate.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, I am conscious that we are approaching the end of a long day. However, as the chairman of the sub-committee which was responsible for drafting the Select Committee's report on voting rights in local elections in February of this year, I should like to make a few observations in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, particularly as it was at the sub-committee's request that he was good enough to raise the Question for discussion by the House.
The House will be aware that the report was made to the House for information. I believe that I speak for the other members of the sub-committee as well as for myself in saying that we were a little saddened by what seemed to be the wholly negative attitude to the Commission's proposals which emerged from the evidence given by representatives of the Home Office. Nevertheless, it did not seem to us at that time appropriate to increase the burdens upon the time of this House by recommending a debate on proposals which were in any event likely to be further distilled and which we hoped would evoke a more positive response when the Select Committee's opinion had been published and considered.
Again, I have to say that the Government's considered response to the report was no less negative in approach than had been foreshadowed by its evidence. It emerged however that the Government would evidently welcome the assistance that they would derive from a debate. The Home Secretary's letter to the chairman of the Select Committee said:
"We shall doubtless be in a better position to judge public opinion on this issue after it has been debated in both Houses".
It concluded by noting—possibly through a Freudian slip, possibly through momentary dyslexia—the Committee's recommendation that the matter should

809
be debated by this House. I only hope that those citations are not to be taken as indications of the attention with which the remainder of the report was read.
Of course there are difficulties in the way of implementing the Commission's proposals in their present form. Not the least is the question whether a directive under Article 235 of the treaty is permissible and whether the proposals should not be recast as a resolution of the member states in council. The report draws attention to those difficulties, and they are reiterated in the Government's response. However, they are not insuperable.
What I have found so depressing about the response is the total absence of any indication of the desire to tackle the difficulties or to address what I, and, I think, the other members of Sub-Committee E took to be the central core of the Commission's proposals—proposals which, it should be said, were brought forward after years of steady pressure from the European Parliament. According to the recital to the draft directive:
"Steps must be taken to ensure that free movement of persons is not achieved at the expense of a loss of political rights at local levels".
Paragraph 15 of the report quotes the Commission's 1986 report to the European Parliament where it says:
"The most important considerations are those of morality and justice. There is no doubt that non-nationals contribute to the economic development and prosperity of their country of residence. Added to which their presence contributes to the cultural life of the local community".
There are substantial numbers of citizens of Community states more or less permanently resident in Great Britain, just as there are substantial numbers of British citizens resident in other Community states. They live here; they pay community charge here, they send their children to local schools. They are here in exercise of the right of free movement conferred by the treaty and incorporated into our law by the European Communities Act 1972. Come 1992 their numbers are likely to increase. We simply have to ask ourselves the question: can it really be morally justified that, by the exercise of a right which lies at the very root of the treaty, those persons while compelled to contribute to local government finances, should be deprived of any say in the conduct of affairs in the local community in which they spend their working lives?
It is said that there is no evidence that anyone is dissuaded from moving to another Community state by the prospect of the consequent disenfranchisement. Indeed, it would be very surprising if there were. However, that is not the point.
It is said that there is no evidence of popular support for any alteration of the qualification for voting in local elections. There is in fact some evidence, as paragraph 25 of the report makes clear, although I accept that it is now somewhat out of date. But certainly the injustice of the position has not escaped those who are disenfranchised. Noble Lords who read The Times newspaper may have seen only four days ago a letter from a lady in north London complaining that her foreign nationality deprived her
810
of a local vote. If she had been resident in Denmark, in the Irish Republic or in the Netherlands she would not have felt moved to complain. While we in Great Britain are not alone in lagging behind those countries, we have to address the question. And we have to address it sooner rather than later. I should like to think that this country would at least be in the vanguard in moving to rectify what by any objective standard is an obvious injustice.
So far, the response to the committee's welcome in paragraph 64 of the report to the broad thrust of the Commission's proposal—as if it were the final and unanswerable argument—has been:
"The Government, however, remain of the view that the Commission's proposal relates primarily to the conferment and exercise of a political right, which has only a marginal bearing on the free movement of citizens between Member States".
That is what I have ventured to categorise, I hope not unfairly, as a negative approach. It is not an answer to the moral imperative. I would hope that your Lordships could be assured that the question is being approached in the Council of Ministers with rather more interest and commitment than that response suggests.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, since this Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was first put down, a Community summit has taken place which, according to the reports which have appeared in the newspapers, has planned meetings to agree further advances towards the European Community as now envisaged. Against that background the answers which the Minister will give this evening in response to the Question will be carefully studied in the expectation that we shall be granted an insight into the future conduct of the negotiations towards that European Community.
There are a number of questions now at issue, some of which have appeared in all their strength only in the past few months. It is clear now that under the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act we are moving towards a Community of the present twelve member states on four fronts.
First, there is the front on which most progress has been made. That is the economic union front, which is currently in danger of running aground through its failure to solve external problems of free trade. Secondly, the front upon which there has been a great deal of recent comment and publicity is that of monetary union. The third front, which has been the subject of some discussion and has now come to the fore, is the one raised by the Question now before the House; namely, political union. The fourth front relates to matters of social policy. That has made some progress, though not much, since the Social Charter.
The Question tonight lies in substance and reality within the political union area. In its report the sub-committee took that view, as did Her Majesty's Government. Therefore however desirable may be the proposed variations in voting rights at local elections, it seems that, as they are outside the present treaty provisions designed to bring about economic and

811
monetary union, it requires the unanimity of all 12 member states to agree to effect those variations. Therefore the proposals will fall into the discussions for political union which are now to take place.
The report itself shows that this is a good example of the Commission to date attempting, for reasons which could well be described as spurious economic reasons, to include a matter lying within the political area as a proposal falling within the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. It would certainly assist the future development of the Community so far as concerns public relations if the Commission were now to deal with problems within their proper areas and not try to force political and environmental wedges into the economic union area where they do not belong Should this be a matter within the political area and be treated as such, it will be of great assistance if Her Majesty's Government could indicate whether they will treat the proposals as set out in this report as part of the steps towards political union now to be put under discussion.
The first problem that arises is the doctrine of subsidiarity. Where does that fall within the present proposals? When Her Majesty's Government come to deal with discussions on political union, will the doctrine of subsidiarity leave it to the United Kingdom Parliament to deal with local government elections within the United Kingdom or will the Commission itself have a right to direct how local elections will take place in the United Kingdom?
My first question is this, therefore. This doctrine now having reared its head, especially in the monetary union area, how does the Minister regard the principle of subsidiarity as affecting the proposals in the report? Does he consider that that doctrine has any applicability here and, if so, how will Her Majesty's Government treat that point in the discussions?
I come to my second question. Will the Minister now consider whether it might be possible for Her Majesty's Government to bring out some document indicating the kind of political union that they can see coming at the end of the day? How will that political union appear at the end of the tunnel? Apparently we have laid on the table various proposals, which I must admit that I have not yet seen, in order to enable the 12 member states to hold discussions with a view to progress in that area. At the end of the day, what kind of political union are we looking at and how will accountability and answerability—those two important facets of democratic government—appear when these Proposals are put into effect?
I know that that is a large question and cannot possibly be answered tonight. However, I believe that the electorate will be most grateful if, in connection with these talks, it can be informed for discussion now how Her Majesty's Government envisage the progress that will be made and the goal towards which they are moving.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for tabling this Unstarred Question. We have had the advantage of a
812
comprehensive summary from the noble Lord and additional comments from the chairman and two members of the committee. Except for the Minister, I am the only person taking part in this debate who has not been a member of the committee.
I found the report extremely interesting and well written, as one always expects from a Select Committee. I have read it about three times, as the blue and red marks that I have made on almost every page will show. I note that the noble Lord's Question refers to the directive on voting rights, whereas in his opening remarks he referred to voting rights and standing for election. I note that the first conclusion of the committee refers to voting rights and the right to stand for election. The amended directive, Directive 524, which is also set out in the report, refers to both voting rights and the right to stand for election.
However, I recognise that the bulk of the report deals with voting rights. I note very carefully—and no noble Lord has said anything to the contrary—that there is no proposal whatever to extend voting rights for national elections; that is, parliamentary elections. It will be recalled that in the Representation of the People Act 1985, amended in 1989, our legislation gave the right to United Kingdom residents abroad to vote in United Kingdom elections for Parliament and for the European Parliament. That is purely United Kingdom legislation for our citizens who may be abroad.
The legal arguments regarding Article 235 are dealt with comprehensively in the report and have been covered by both the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. Therefore I do not propose to refer to that article at all except to note that paragraphs 69 and 70 of the report recommend a cautious approach. The report states:
"If Community competence were accepted, it would extend to national elections".
The committee therefore proposes that the draft directive be adopted as a resolution of member states meeting within the Council.
I again quote from the report. It says:
"This is a less formal instrument than a Treaty amendment, and would imply that the franchise remains within national jurisdiction".
The last sentence of paragraph 60 states:
"In the view of the Committee such an instrument offers the necessary flexibility, would enable implementation in the member states to go ahead without the full formality of Treaty amendment, and would acknowledge that even at local level the franchise is a matter remaining within national jurisdiction".
I should like amplification of what that means. What are the rights which remain within national jurisdiction? It is important to know the precise meaning of those words.
Conflicting views were expressed about whether or not there is a public demand for an extension of the franchise. I do not know whether there is. From my contact with people, very few know much about the proposed extension of the franchise. Whether or not they would support it, I do not know. I know—as is

813
stated in paragraph 20 of the report —that the organisation of which I am president, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, was unable to give a definitive comment on the report because of conflicting views from its 36 affiliated organisations. I therefore do not know whether there will be a general desire for such extended franchise. I believe that once it was decided to pass such legislation, the public would readily accept it.
When writing in the House Magazine on 10th December, Mr. Glyn Ford, MEP, leader of the European Labour Party and vice-president of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, stated:
"Europe as a genuine community must be a community of citizens and be responsible to citizens' wishes. Citizens and residents of Europe should be able to vote in European elections in the member states in which they reside".
Noble Lords may know that a recent statement made by European socialist leaders meeting in Madrid included a declaration—which I paraphrase—that all Community policies must lead to the improvement of the living standards of European citizens. Measures to achieve that should include political rights such as the right to participate in local and European elections in the state of residence. However, any such development must be subject to further consideration of constitutional and citizenship arrangements in the member states. My interpretation of that declaration is that there is sympathy for the proposed objective but that consideration has to be given to possible constitutional and electoral questions.
In considering the main points raised in the report, I emphasise that my views are purely personal reflections. I state them mainly because of my keen interest in electoral matters, and because I also regard myself as a good European. At the time of the referendum, I decided that we should remain in Europe. I therefore consider the issue from the angle of a European who supports the Community and consideration of the electoral questions involved.
Reference has been made to the numbers involved. The Commission's estimate is that Community nationals represent 1.3 per cent. of the total UK population. Of those, about 600,000 Irish nationals already have the right to vote in UK elections. The Commission states that only 100,000 citizens would be affected by the proposals. However, in paragraph 28 the UK Government estimate that 200,000 Community citizens might benefit. That is twice the figure put forward by the Commission.
However, even if one takes the higher figure, on my simple arithmetic that represents about 430 persons per district council in Great Britain. I do not believe that that would greatly affect elections. When one sub-divides that figure into wards, the number of individuals involved in each ward would be very small. That disposes of any argument that to give voting rights to European citizens resident in this country would unduly affect election results.
More importantly, the report states that twice as many foreign residents in the United Kingdom were
814
nationals of non-Community countries. Paragraph 28 of the report draws attention to the suggestion made by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that,
"the introduction of voting rights for Community nationals might draw criticism from nationals of non-Community countries … who were resident and paid local taxes or charges in the United Kingdom, but had no voting rights".
However, I note that in reply to question 38, when giving evidence to the committee, Dr. Taschner said:
"We should not and would not, cannot and could not, hinder you in granting rights to third country nationals".
Nothing could be more definite about the right of Britain, if it so desired, to give voting rights to non-Community nationals. I do not say that we should do so, but clearly if we gave rights to non-Community nationals the important question of reciprocity would arise.
The position of Irish citizens resident in the UK is dealt with at some length in the report. The issue was raised by some noble Lords. It is argued that the rights given to Irish citizens in UK legislation may be considered anomalous if not extended to other European Community nationals. The committee concludes that there is need for those rights to be brought into line to avoid discrimination.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said that Irish citizens must not be deprived of their present rights. I am certain that the general view in the United Kingdom is that nothing should be done to interfere with the present right of Irish nationals to participate in United Kingdom elections. I believe that it would be most dangerous to do so, in particular with regard to the present situation in Northern and Southern Ireland and the endeavour to obtain agreement.
We therefore have to consider the existing franchise for local elections in the United Kingdom. It is governed by RPA 1983. The right to vote at local elections is restricted to Commonwealth and Irish citizens over 18 years of age on the date of election, resident in the area on the qualifying date and not subject to any legal incapacity to vote. It must be emphasised that there is no period of residence. The normal registration procedure obtains. All noble Lords will be aware that Form A, to which reference is made, makes it absolutely clear that those who may register to vote are British, other Commonwealth and Irish citizens. I am certain that there will be no desire in the United Kingdom to interfere with that procedure.
However, the question of a qualifying period of residence is raised in paragraphs 51 to 56. A period of years is proposed in the directive, together with the issue of residence certificates. I was pleased to note that the Select Committee proposed no residence period requirement. It emphasised that such a proposal would also remove the need for a tier of administration for the issue of residence certificates.
At paragraph 68 the committee concludes that the issue is best left to national or local law. I understand that a period of residence could still be prescribed provided that all Community countries were enfranchised equally. The question of reciprocity will arise; whatever we lay down in this country we shall

815
wish to see laid down in other Community countries. If a directive is approved, any change in the franchise qualifications will need primary legislation by our Parliament. It will be highly desirable to retain our present registration requirements.
Another issue dealt with in the report relates to the local government bodies which will be affected by the change. The Commission's first proposal referred to municipalities, which were defined as first tier councils. That was criticised by the Home Office, which said that the powers of the first tier would vary from member state to member state. It pointed out that in the United Kingdom the structure of local government varies from area to area. Some areas have three tiers, some two tiers and others only one. I note that the Commission amended Article 1 of the proposed directive to state:
"Local elections shall mean elections which are defined as such by Member States".
I dare to suggest that that is a loose definition. In the Select Committee's report, reference is made to a Community national who has lived in, say, Aberdeen for some years and who then moves to Hackney. It is asked what he will know about local conditions. The same argument already applies because a United Kingdom citizen who has been living in Aberdeen for some years can move to Hackney. He may know nothing about the area but, provided he is properly qualified, he can register and vote.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, raised the issue of reciprocity. We could find one member state—for instance, Great Britain—deciding that the right shall be given to Community nationals to vote in county council elections. However, another Community state may give the right only in relation to the lowest possible unit. Therefore, the directive must be more definite and state that the matter is solely for member states to determine.
Reference has been made to the right to stand for election. Although the committee included that in its recommendation, the report dealt mainly with voting rights. I believe that, if the directive includes the right to stand for election to local government bodies in the area in which a Community national resides, it will be highly desirable to retain in the United Kingdom the qualifications for candidature which appear in the existing Representation of the People Act.
I have endeavoured to draw attention to some of the important observations made by the committee. I have also endeavoured to look at a few matters that are pertinent to the United Kingdom. They are issues which will require the most serious consideration as suggested by the Conference of Socialist Leaders which was recently held in Madrid and to which I have referred.
8.4 p.m
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I am also grateful to all those noble Lords who have contributed to this useful debate. I hope that in the time available I shall be able to deal with all the points which have
816
been raised; if not, I shall certainly write to the noble Lords concerned. I say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that I have listening ears. I can assure him and my noble friend Lady Elles that the department will pay close attention to the views that have been expressed.
This House has traditionally taken something of a back seat on matters concerning the franchise and representation of the people generally. We have thought it better to leave the minutiae of such matters to our colleagues in another place. Your Lordships may, for instance, recall the Representation of the People Act 1990, which dealt with the provision of long-term absent votes for those who move house. As a matter of convention, detailed scrutiny of such technical matters is not undertaken in this House. But it is clearly right that this House should express a view on such a fundamental issue as the proposed extension of our franchise, albeit only at a local government level, to resident nationals of European Community member states.
I must begin by paying tribute to the chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, whom I am pleased to see is present and to all the members of the committee, for their work on this directive. The committee's report, which was published in February of this year, is a painstaking and comprehensive analysis of the Commission's proposal. It emphasises the important principles with which we are all concerned in considering this issue and highlights the various technical and practical difficulties which are involved. I am glad that so many of the committee's members have been able to attend the debate this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, asked what progress has been made in the Council of Ministers on the Commission's proposal. I should like to deal with that specific point first before moving on to discuss the merits of the draft directive.
The idea of a European Community franchise for local elections in member states dates back at least to the Paris Summit of 1974, since when there have been several attempts to achieve concerted action. The draft directive was published in July 1988 following many years of intermittent pressure—mainly in the European Parliament—for action in this area. In October 1989 the Commission published an amended proposal which had been revised in the light of the views of the European Parliament, and which made only a few minor changes to the original directive. If adopted, the directive would require the United Kingdom and those other member states who deny their local government franchise to foreign nationals, to extend such voting rights and the right to stand as candidates to all citizens of other member states after a minimum period of residence in the host state.
At the beginning of this year an ad hoc Council working group was established under the Irish Presidency to consider the detail of the directive. The working group has since met on three occasions and discussion has generally focused on details of drafting and on the difficulties envisaged by member states

817
with various provisions of the directive. A report from the presidency on progress went to the Committee of Permanent Representatives of Member States, and thence to a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in June. The report made clear that, although some progress has been achieved on points of detail, this has not yet gone so far as to overcome the constitutional, legal and practical difficulties expressed by various member states. At its meeting in June the Council took note of the current position without discussion and the Commission proposed that work on the directive should continue. The Council has therefore asked the Committee of Permanent Representatives to pursue the detailed study of the proposal.
That is the current position on this proposal. I shall turn now to the Government's approach to the proposal and the position that we have adopted in the current deliberations in Brussels. The Government agree with the Select Committee that this proposal to legislate in the field of voting falls outside the Community's competence and, therefore, that the Council does not have power under Article 235 of the EC Treaty to adopt the Commission's draft directive. Therefore, there is insufficient basis in the treaties for the Commission's proposal. In a report to the European Council in 1975 the Commission itself said:
"At present there are no provisions in the Community Treaties, even including Article 235 … which grant the power to act on political rights".
And that remains the case. I think there can be no doubt that we are talking here of a political right. A number of our major partners in the Community share this view.
We do not accept—as a justification for Community legislation—the argument advanced by the Commission and set out in the preamble to its draft directive that the right to vote in local government elections (after a period of residence of up to five years or so) is integral to the free movement of persons for which the treaties do provide, and that it is, therefore, itself covered by the treaties. To suggest that the right to vote is fundamental to freedom of movement would be to accept a significant extension of the competence of the Community institutions; but if, as the Select Committee, the Government and other major member states believe, the Community is not competent under Article 235, then the proposal in this draft directive should not be a Community measure at all.
If we are now, as I think we are, agreed that this directive cannot be adopted by the Council, then, if its aims are to be achieved, some other means must be found to do so, and I shall return, if I may, in a few moments to the question of where we go from here. First, however, I should like to say a few words about some of the practical difficulties which the Commission's proposal gives rise to. Changing the franchise is always fraught with difficulties and it may help if I give an example or two of the sort of thing that I have in mind.
There is, for instance, the problem of deciding to which type of local government election the franchise
818
would apply. Functions and powers vary considerably between, and sometimes within, member states, rendering the value of the vote widely different according to the country or type of local authority involved. The problem therefore is that this proposal would have a discriminatory effect because the value of the vote given to citizens of member states would vary according to the country they were residing in and which particular powers local authortities in that country were capable of exercising.
Another difficulty arises in respect of the registration process itself. Registration as an elector is in effect compulsory at present in the United Kingdom. But it could not be so for Community nationals resident here, who would be able to choose whether they wished to vote in local elections here or in their own country. It would therefore be necessary to maintain a separate and additional electoral register for resident Community nationals, and this would doubtless have significant resource implications for local authorities.
The Select Committee has identified many other practical points which need to be addressed. There is, for example, the potentially anomalous position of Irish citizens under the directive. It seems likely that, were the proposal to be adopted, citizens of the Republic of Ireland would have to be subjected to the same requirements of length of residence as nationals of other member states. Their position would therefore be worsened under the terms of the directive, and we would not find this acceptable. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said on that point.
The Select Committee also pointed to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposed residence requirement in the directive. We are inclined to agree with the Committee's suggestion that the best solution would be to drop this requirement altogether, and that it should be left to individual member states to decide whether to require a specific period of residence before Community nationals could be enfranchised. But your Lordships may think this is a rather peculiar way of attempting to harmonise arrangements relating to the local government franchise.
None of these points need constitute an overwhelming obstacle: far from it. But these, and similar technical difficulties faced by other member states, will need to be overcome if real progress is to be made.
I should not like to leave your Lordships with the impression that the United Kingdom is out on a limb in seeing some difficulties with this directive. That is not so. A number of member states share our doubts on the issue of the Community's competence to pursue those proposals—most notably France, Denmark and Germany. France and Germany also have constitutional difficulties with the proposals, as do Italy, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg. All those countries would need to make some amendment to their constitution in order to adopt the proposal. Severe practical difficulties with the directive's proposals are also envisaged by Germany, Luxembourg, and France as regards making suitable administrative arrangements for the proposal.

819
Where do we go from here? In its report, the Select Committee suggested that, as the Community does not appear to have the power to pursue this matter within the scope of the treaties, the Commission's proposal might be considered and adopted as a resolution of member states meeting within the Council. This is a mechanism whereby a proposal which could not be put into effect by means of a legislative act of the Community can nevertheless be pursued if member states are broadly in favour of its substance. In our view, this is the only way in which the objectives of the Commission and the Select Committee could be achieved.
As I have said, the matter now rests with the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Progress on this issue is dependent on resolving the difficulties raised by this proposal so that the necessary unanimity may be achieved. There is little point in attempting to predict how swift or how satisfactory that progress will be. But I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will continue to play their full part in the search for agreement.
I need not remind your Lordships that the intergovernmental conference on political union, which was launched in Rome on 15th December, will consider proposals for revision of the treaty. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Granchester, who is now on the Woolsack and therefore obliged to accept anything I say in reference to his remarks without being able to gainsay it, that the United Kingdom will play a central and a positive role in all of these negotiations. We are looking for reforms that will make the Community more open, liberal, democratic and efficient. We have already made a number of suggestions, and we will make more as the conference gets under way. Among suggestions made by others is the inclusion in the treaty of a recognition of a Community citizen's right to vote in European Parliament, and possibly local, elections, which would have the effect of making possible a directive along the lines that we are discussing. All of these proposals will be discussed in detail by the conference.
We understand the argument put forward by the Select Committee, reflected in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, that the right to vote complements freedom of movement and would reflect the close and growing ties between member states. Such arguments should not be dismissed out of hand. Our mind is not closed. We will consider carefully and without prejudice whatever proposals are put forward in the course of discussions at the conference.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, pressed me on the Government's reservations on principles. I have explained that those reservations stem from our doubt; about the Community's competence to propose legislation in this area. The noble Lord asked me also what the Government mean when they say that this is a matter within the national jurisdiction of member states. We consider the extent of the franchise to be a matter for individual national parliaments to
820
decide. We agree with the Select Committee that that is not a matter which comes within the scope of the Community as set out in the treaties.
The noble Lord asked about our position on the issue of public support. I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Public support on the issue is hard to estimate. While there may be some support for the Commission's proposal, we see no evidence of overwhelming public interest in the matter. For example, in 1989 the Home Office received 31 letters from EC citizens resident in this country asking for the right to vote-l2 directly and 19 via Members of Parliament. By contrast, we received over 50 letters criticising the breadth of the existing franchise; in other words, arguing in the opposite direction. I agree that not all legislation needs to be preceded by public clamour. We do not regard the absence of evidence of public demand as an insuperable obstacle to legislation.
The noble Lord asked whether the Government are saying that differences in local election systems are grounds for opposing the proposal. No. We merely point out that such differences throw up practical problems which must be addressed before any significant progress on the proposal can be achieved.
My noble friend Lady Elles asked whether there is an estimate of the number of EC nationals resident in this country. Based on labour force surveys for 1984–86, we estimate that there are approximately 200,000 European Community nationals usually resident in Great Britain who may become eligible to vote under this proposal.
My noble friend made the very good point about the reciprocal nature of this proposal. As regards Commonwealth countries, not all Commonwealth countries offer reciprocal voting rights but a number do so. For example, of the approximately 500,000 Commonwealth citizens eligible to vote at the 1987 general election, around 150,000 came from countries which allow reciprocal voting rights to British citizens.
The noble Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to what he described as the negative attitude of Home Office officials. I am sorry that he found their attitude negative. It may be that they had a number of negative things to say in respect of potential problems raised by the Commission's proposal. I assure the noble Lord that their concern was to give the committee the fullest possible explanation of the Government's position and to help the committee in its inquiries in any way that they could.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked how the principle of subsidiarity would apply to the proposal. If a change were to be made by a resolution outside the scope of the Community treaties, legislation would have to be enacted by national parliaments and Community institutions would not have a legislative role.
I should like to close by reiterating the Government's thanks to the Select Committee for its detailed consideration of the proposal. Its work helped to clarify the issues involved, to focus on the practical problems that need to be addressed and to

821
point the way forward. As I said at the outset of my remarks, we shall give careful consideration to the many further interesting comments put forward this evening. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will accept that assurance in the spirit in which it is given, and that he and the other members of the Select Committee will feel that in raising the matter this evening they have accomplished a worthwhile exercise.

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF EC LEGISLATION
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF EC LEGISLATION
  RAPE CONVICTIONS IN SCOTLAND
  RAPE CONVICTIONS IN SCOTLAND
  SUSPENDED SENTENCES: PROPOSED USE IN SCOTLAND
  SUSPENDED SENTENCES: PROPOSED USE IN SCOTLAND
  POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATORY BODIES: LIAISON
  POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATORY BODIES: LIAISON
  HOMELESS SINGLE PEOPLE IN LONDON: ACCOMMODATION
  HOMELESS SINGLE PEOPLE IN LONDON: ACCOMMODATION
  BRITISH LIBRARY: COST FORECAST
  BRITISH LIBRARY: COST FORECAST
  INCOME COMPARISONS
  INCOME COMPARISONS
  BRITISH FORCES IN EUROPE: 1988–89 COSTS
  BRITISH FORCES IN EUROPE: 1988–89 COSTS
  ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND ROAD ROUTE DECISIONS
  ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND ROAD ROUTE DECISIONS
  ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: ASSESSMENT OF VALUE
  ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES: ASSESSMENT OF VALUE
  PRISONERS: CHANGES OF UNDERPANTS
  PRISONERS: CHANGES OF UNDERPANTS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: SUMMONSES TO NON-PAYERS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: SUMMONSES TO NON-PAYERS
  REMAND PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS:COSTS
  REMAND PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS:COSTS
  TREVI AND EC IMMIGRATION MINISTERS' MEETINGS, 6TH AND 7TH DECEMBER
  TREVI AND EC IMMIGRATION MINISTERS' MEETINGS, 6TH AND 7TH DECEMBER