Sitting of 12 February 1990

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  Death of a Member
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of James Harold McCusker Esq, the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss that we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Channel tunnel rail link.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): British Rail and its private sector partner, Eurorail, are working to specify a route for the Channel tunnel rail link from Swanley in Kent to King's Cross. The aim is to introduce a parliamentary Bill for the project in November.
    Mr. Townsend: Is it the Government's view that the rail link represents a major national project that will benefit all regions of this country, encourage the use of the railways
    2
    and protect the environment? If so, should not it be controlled and financed by a partnership of the Government, British Rail and the private sector?
    Mr. Portillo: It is clear that Channel tunnel rail services represent such a partnership, because £1 billion of British Rail money is being spent on the first phase of improving rail links, even before the matter of a new line arises. It is right that the new line should be a commercial proposition, because it will be in competition with the airlines., ferries and other private modes of transport. I do not foresee any need for a public sector subsidy, but it is an appropriate project for British Rail and the private sector to operate as a joint venture.
    Mr. Fearn: Does not the Minister agree that it would be sensible for British Rail to use the year that it now has to rethink its policy and use other methods, under which it could consider the comprehensive services that it offers? Does he agree that services to the north are not comprehensive and need further consideration?
    Mr. Portillo: British Rail and its partner are using the year to consider some of the measures that the hon. Gentleman suggested, including the route from Swanley to King's Cross. British Rail brought forward a comprehensive plan on links to the other regions. It offers about 3 million seats from the regions to Paris and Brussels and a comprehensive series of freight services from every part of the country. That is a good plan, but if the hon. Gentleman has proposals on how it should be modified, I am sure that the last full stop has not been put to it.
    Sir John Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the prospect of Channel tunnel traffic hurtling along existing British Rail track in Bromley and elsewhere is horrific and totally unacceptable? Will he therefore look more closely and sympathetically than he has hitherto at the alternative proposals presented by Ove Arup and Partners, which provides for a national rail infrastructure with reduced environmental damage and disturbance?
    Mr. Portillo: British Rail believes that until the turn of the century the new Channel tunnel services will be accommodated on the existing system without disrupting

    3
    commuter services, and it is important that they should be preserved. Together with its private sector partner, British Rail is considering whether extra capacity will be needed at about the turn of the century. Its private sector partner was chosen after competition, which included firms such as Ove Arup. Ove Arup's proposal includes making four tracks through much of Kent, which might be more environmentally damaging than the two tracks proposed by British Rail and its private sector partner.
    Mr. Prescott: Do the Minister and the Secretary of State accept that if we are to get the best economic advantage for Britain and the north, with the least environmental damage to London and the south, we should repeal section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987? That would allow him and the Secretary of State to reassess the alternatives, so that Britain's national interests are catered for rather than the private interests of the City.
    Mr. Portillo: That is a controversial proposal. Section 42 was approved by Parliament and enjoyed all-party support. That section stated that there should not be any subsidy to the Channel tunnel. The reason why that section was introduced and approved by Parliament was sound. Parliament did not want the Channel tunnel to undermine other forms of transport that had to get by without subsidy. What stands in our way is not just section 42 but its underlying principle, which commended itself to Parliament at the time.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I remind my hon. Friend that the fears for the Kent environment are very much alive. Will he, in his discussions with British Rail, ensure that British Rail does not backslide on the considerable measures that it has taken to protect the environment and which were built into its previously announced plans?
    Mr. Portillo: British Rail and its private sector partner are well aware of the immense importance that the Government attach to environmental protection. The requirement that an environmental impact study should be published at the time will be part of the process of introducing a Bill on this subject. I hope that that is of some consolation to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion for his constituents in this matter.

    Greater Manchester
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the level of funding for Greater Manchester passenger transport authority for 1990–91.
    Mr. Portillo: The Government are making available to the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority £58 million in grant and credit approvals. We have given the go-ahead to the Manchester airport terminal 2, to the rail link to the airport and to the Manchester Metrolink light rail project.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that information. Will he consider the possibility of increasing that funding, by instructing British Rail to make a refund to Greater Manchester passenger transport authority, because of British Rail's failure to provide the service that it was contracted to provide during the past 12 months? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that during that period—the Secretary of State has made this point—trains have been late or cancelled and service in the Greater Manchester
    4
    area has been totally inefficient? Does the hon. Gentleman further agree that a refund should be made to the authority and fares cut, not increased? British Rail should come up with the goods for paying passengers in Greater Manchester, instead of providing a poor-quality service.
    Mr. Portillo: I have to be rather careful on this subject. As the hon. Gentleman may know, if the PTA decides to pursue a case against British Rail for non-performance because it feels that BR has let the passengers down, that case will ultimately go to Ministers who might have to arbitrate. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I cannot comment much on this point. Fares are a matter for the PTA. The £58 million in grant and credit approvals that has been made available to Greater Manchester PTA is a substantial amount, which will enable a significant range of passenger projects to go ahead.
    Mr. Favell: Of course, there is lots of jam tomorrow for the British Rail passenger in Greater Manchester, but what about now? As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, many trains have been late or cancelled and there is sheer, unadulterated misery for many commuters from Stockport and elsewhere in Greater Manchester. Has that arisen, as suggested in the press, because of the late delivery of Sprinter trains? If so, who is to blame? How did that happen? What is to be done about it? When can something be done?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has done his constituents a great service in bringing their difficulties to my attention. I have great sympathy with those people in making difficult journeys. My hon. Friend identified one reason—late delivery of trains—but there have been unconnected reasons as well, such as delays in the work at Piccadilly station. It is not for me to attribute blame between the parties, but I am pleased to say that I understand that the class 158 Sprinters should be delivered in the spring and early summer, which should benefit my hon. Friend's constituents.

    Electrification (Birmingham)
    Mr. Snape: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the electrification of the Birmingham cross-city railway line.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I announced last week the Government's approval to the electrification and re-equipment of the Birmingham cross-city rail line.
    Mr. Snape: Opposition Members are grateful to the Secretary of State for that announcement, hurried though it appeared to be. We accept, of course, that there is no connection between his decision and the Mid-Staffordshire by-election that is to be held shortly. Will the Secretary of State now consider the extension of the Walsall-Hendnesford railway line to Rugeley, preferably on or before 15 March?
    Mr. Parkinson: I believe that the county council is strongly opposed to the proposal, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman's party is in charge of that council. I am sure that when he tabled his question two weeks ago he

    5
    did not have the by-election in mind; nor, I think, did he have it mind to help the Conservative candidate and neither did I.
    Mr. Roger King: Did my right hon. Friend chance to see the evening paper last week? Blazoned across the front page was the headline, "Cross City Rail Joy". That, of course, was the result of the extensive £37 million modernisation programme announced by my right hon. Friend. Is not this a reflection of the hard work done by many Members of Parliament in Birmingham and the areas surrounding it—particularly that of our late colleague John Heddle, who was in the vanguard of the campaign to bring a modernised rail service to his constituents?
    Mr. Parkinson: Birmingham Members, especially Conservatives, have certainly been very assiduous in pressing the case for inner-city improvement in Birmingham, and the rail link—along with the heartlands spine road—is evidence of the Government's commitment to inner-city regeneration.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Secretary of State aware that the rail link from Nottingham to London would cost——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does it go across Birmingham?
    Mr. Allen: Yes. Is the Secretary of State aware that the link would cost a mere £95 million?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question concerns the Birmingham cross-city railway line.
    Mr. Allen: The link referred to in the question is, of course, entirely unrelated to the by-election. Will the right hon. Gentleman call on some of his colleagues in Nottinghamshire to resign their seat so that we, too, can benefit from an electrification similar to that which is now benefiting the people of Lichfield?
    Mr. Parkinson: I thought that the question was a pretty feeble joke when the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) put it on the Order Paper. Conservative Members do not regard the Humber bridge as a desirable precedent, and therefore do not intend to follow it.

    Civil Aviation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's competition policy with regard to civil aviation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Our policy is to promote competition throughout civil aviation, with, of course, proper safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour. We have played a leading role in the European Community's progress towards a freer market in aviation.
    Mr. Steen: I thank the Minister for the robust way in which he personally is pursuing the Government's important competition policy. Is he aware, however, that unfortunately Italy, Spain and Germany are not prepared to recognise the EC directive on competition? As a result British Airways, with its block, and Air France, with its anti-competitive arrangements with Lufthansa, are freezing out the smaller, independent airlines and preventing them from competing with the big boys. If we
    6
    are not to see a repeat of the Laker episode—and we have already seen signs at Gatwick that that may be happening—what policy have the Government to help the smaller airlines to compete in Europe, especially with countries that will not support the EC directive?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Many of the points that my hon. Friend has brought up are very important; his remarks about competition policy must be addressed by the European Commissioner who has responsibility for competition. It is important that we put the user first. We must allow competition so that the passenger obtains the full benefit of what we hope will be a freer aviation market, which we hope will lead to cheaper fares in the long term.
    Mr. Colvin: I welcome the package of liberalisation measures agreed in Brussels on 1 December, but what arrangements are being made for the introduction of transitional arrangements between now and 1993—arrangements on which much of the growth in competition will depend?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, relating to the whole question of progress towards a freer aviation market. As I said, such matters as takeovers and mergers must be dealt with by competition policy, and primarily involve my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. A number of cases are under consideration at present. However, there is nothing to stop the industry preparing for 1992 and its consequences.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give us an update about what he is doing to improve air transport from Greater Manchester, particularly from Manchester international airport, and tell us how the negotiations on getting routes across the north Atlantic are progressing?
    Mr. McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met the Secretary of Transportation in the United States and another meeting is planned in the near future. We are very hopeful and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are exceptionally keen to see links from Manchester to the United States. We have done a lot of work to that end and we shall continue to work vigorously on that policy. I hope that we shall see a successful conclusion, as the hon. Gentleman was right to say that this has been continuing for some time.

    Humber Bridge
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current estimated deficit being carried by the Humber bridge board; and what plans he has to review the situation of the board.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): The debt on the Humber bridge is about £342 million. We are working with the bridge board on financial projections that it will use to support its detailed case for Government assistance.
    Mr. Cran: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the saga of the Humber bridge debt has gone on far too long and that that is illustrated by the fact that a debt next year of about £400 million is projected, with interest charges being clocked up to the tune of £1 a second? Everyone believes

    7
    that the matter should be resolved, including the Government. Will my hon. Friend tell us what impediments there are to an agreement?
    Mr. Atkins: We are waiting for several things, and we hope to be able to make a decision in the not-too-distant future. However, my hon. Friend has been a champion of the need to resolve concern about the bridge, and he will be aware that we shall do what we can as quickly as we can, but he will have to wait a little longer yet.
    Ms. Ruddock: Is not that an admission that tolls are not a success and that where they pay their way they cause great congestion, for example in Dartford, and where they do not pay their way, they force operators to raise tolls to such a level that they are a grave disincentive to local business, for example on Humberside and Merseyside? Is the Minister aware that the only alternative to raising tolls to such a level in Merseyside is an extra £10 per person on the poll tax? Surely it is time that the Government reviewed their policy on tolls and provided help for Humberside and Merseyside.
    Mr. Atkins: As I think everyone is aware, the Humber bridge was build by Barbara Castle to ensure a by-election victory for a Labour candidate in Hull. Typically, therefore, it was not costed properly and it will never make money. Therefore, the taxpayer may have to foot some of the Bill. That is not the sort of argument to which I am prepared to be party.
    Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend the Minister must bear the £342 million in mind, but I hope that he will not allow that to become an overriding factor when considering the link road between the south and north of England——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will that link be via the Humber bridge?
    Mr. Holt: Yes, via the Humber bridge. The last thing that we want is to subsidise the Humber bridge loss by having the link road run up the east coast of England when it should run parallel to the A1. I understand from the Secretary of State that it will take 14 years for the road to be opened after it has been agreed. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not allow the waste of money with regard to the Humber bridge to stop us in the north-east of England from having our proper motorway.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend, as always, champions the cause of greater and better infrastructure for his constituency and for his constituents, in a manner to which we have become accustomed. He will know that the east coast motorway is being considered by a private consortium at the moment and we shall be interested to learn the results of that investigation. My hon. Friend would do well to press his case, as he normally does, and we shall do what we can to meet his concern.

    Traffic Area Office, Cardiff
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make it his policy to retain his Department's present traffic area office in Cardiff to ensure that matters involving Wales are dealt with in the Principality.
    Mr. Atkins: The importance of the Principality is such that I can confirm that I am retaining the traffic area office in Cardiff.
    Mr. Michael: I welcome that lifting of the threat to the Cardiff office. It is obviously good news to us in south Wales, where the threat of closure was causing considerable worry. Does the Minister agree that traffic examiners form an important part of the service, and complement the work of the transport office in Cardiff? In view of the use that is made of them, will the Minister assure the House that traffic examiners' work will be continued and that it will stay under the direction of the office in Cardiff?
    Mr. Atkins: I am delighted that my decision has pleased the hon. Gentleman and all Welshmen. I cannot confirm all the details that he would wish, because we are still looking at the matter. We value the importance of the Cardiff office. When we finalise the plans for the whole Principality, I shall be in a better position to give him more details.

    British Rail
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what subjects he expects to discuss with him.
    Mr. Parkinson: I regularly meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss a variety of railway issues. The last meeting took place on 17 January, and I next plan to meet the chairman tomorrow.
    Mr. Knox: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the chairman tomorrow, will he draw his attention to the inconvenience that is caused to the rail-travelling public by the often marginal twice-yearly changes in InterCity train services? Will he draw his attention to the fact that printed information about alterations to the timetable is often not available beforehand?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall draw those points to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.
    Mr. Rees: Will the Secretary of State congratulate the chairman on the excellent advertisement about InterCity trains? However, when I travelled from Leeds yesterday on Intercity trains, the advertisement bore no relationship to reality. It would be helpful if we knew that trains are not going to run on time, that we must change at Doncaster and that we shall arrive in London an hour and a half late. The same thing happens going the other way. It would be a good idea if somebody told us that we shall be late for appointments.
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall draw those points to the attention of the chairman. Included in the objectives that we have set for the next three years are not only financial but performance objectives, including punctuality and cleanliness. The results will be announced at regular intervals. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see the improvements for himself.
    Mr. Adley: When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman tomorrow, will he explain that, since 1980, the public service obligation grant that the Government make

    9
    available to British Rail has never reached £1 billion? Every year since 1980, the West German federal railways public service obligation grant has exceeded £3 billion. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that one reason why trains are constantly late is insufficient money for staff and for on-going improvements, to keep the service up to scratch?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend knows that I totally disagree with his diagnosis. I have not met any German transport Minister who is proud of the subsidy. They think that it is an outrage that the German taxpayer is forking out £3 billion a year to subsidise the railways.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of British Rail his recent disgraceful comments on a radio programme two weeks ago, to the effect that long-distance commuters must pay an extra 40 per cent. on what are already among the highest railway fares in Europe? Does the Secretary of State think that such stupid and ill-informed comments will endear the Conservative party to commuters in the south of England who, for years, have made the silly mistake of voting Conservative?
    Mr. Parkinson: The stupid and ill-informed comments have just come from the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) had my job a year ago, he announced that long-distance commuters, who represent 18,000 of British Rail's customers—less than one half of 1 per cent.—were receiving a discount of over 60 per cent. on their season tickets. They were paying less per journey than the cheapest discounted off-peak ticket. He felt that that gap should be closed, but he never said that they should pay 100 per cent. This year, on an annual basis, the cost of season tickets has been increased by 13·5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should get a grip of the facts, stop relying on his prejudices and start talking sense.
    Mr. Prescott: See you on Wednesday.
    Mr. Burns: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he raise with him on behalf of my 12,000 commuting constituents the cleanliness of trains and their timekeeping? What will be the benefits to the Chelmsford to Liverpool street line as a result of the record investment that was announced by his Department into services on Network SouthEast?
    Mr. Parkinson: I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who shouted, "See you on Wednesday", to his first televised Question Time—the rest of us have been here three times.
    I have good news for my hon. Friend: the whole of the Liverpool street signalling system is being modernised and work on his line, costing £19 million, is due to begin in the early part of 1991.

    Transport 2000
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives from the group Transport 2000; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Parkinson: I had an informal and broad-ranging meeting with the chairman of Transport 2000 on 24
    10
    January, and I shall be meeting shortly representatives of a number of transport and environmental groups, including Transport 2000.
    Dr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply and for his willingness to meet the group. At the meeting will he pay particular attention to the correspondence between the Minister for Roads and Traffic and Transport 2000 because the Minister has clearly not stated the real status and objectives of the road-building traffic forecasts? What does the Secretary of State regard as the objectives of traffic forecasting in relation to new road-building schemes?
    Mr. Parkinson: It has never been the Government's policy that all traffic forecast demands must be met. In the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity", we spelt out clearly that it would be neither sensible nor economic to remove all congestion. Like all other programmes, the roads programme is governed by what the country can afford. That has always been the case and represents no change of policy.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many transport organisations, including Transport 2000, are increasingly concerned about the effect of road-building programmes on the environment and about the need for a better system of compensation for those affected? Following his most forthcoming answer last time he was top for questions and the answer from the Prime Minister the following day, which was surprising in some respects, will he consider publishing a Green Paper on compensation for those affected by road-building programmes?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not mean to imply that it was unusual for two Ministers in the same Government to say similar things on consecutive days. I should have thought that that was absolutely normal. We are aware of the problems caused by blight and compensation. I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I hope to have some news for my right hon. Friend in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. Prescott: Now that the Secretary of State accepts that it is impossible to have a road-building programme to meet his Department's estimate of the projected demand for the use of private vehicles, does that mean that he accepts that we shall have to restrict use of the private car, especially in our cities? Does he still believe that that is an eastern European solution, or has he now had his talk with the Secretary of State for the Environment?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is as opaque about his transport policy as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was about his rates policy at the weekend. The hon. Gentleman is a great one for exploiting disasters. He is never happier than when he is miserable and trying to make the rest of us miserable as well. In the next three years, we have programmes for roads amounting to £5·7 billion and programmes for rail, underground and public transport amounting to £6 billion.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve mobility of the disabled.
    Mr. Atkins: We want all concerned to recognise and cater for the needs of this important sector of the community. Our plans are set out comprehensively in the document "Transport and Disability: A Statement of Aims and Priorities".
    Mr. Carrington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that access for disabled people to London's buses and the Underground leaves a great deal to be desired. What has been the response to his Department's initiatives on the design of buses to enable access for the disabled? Will he undertake to ensure that in the massive rebuilding and refurbishment that is under way on London Underground, access for the disabled is kept as a top priority?
    Mr. Atkins: As ever, I have worked closely with the disabled persons transport advisory committee which was set up by my Department in 1985 to advise us on such matters. It has produced guidance for the elderly and disabled on the use of buses in particular. My hon. Friend will be grateful for the knowledge that I am about to impart to him: most of the advice that has been received is about simple, cheap and effective ways to help people, and they are being widely adopted. His point about London Underground is well understood. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is working hard on the matter and we shall do what we can to meet my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Leighton: Will the Minister consider the wretched state of Stratford station in east London? Is he aware that it is a busy junction of British Rail, Central and Docklands light railway lines? The tripod barrier makes it almost impossible for anyone to pass through, whether disabled or not. Then there is almost a half-mile walk to the platform. The waiting-rooms have not been decorated since the second world war and the lavatories do not work. Such conditions would not be tolerated in a station in the west end of London, so why should the people of east London tolerate them?
    Mr. Atkins: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman knows the stations in his constituency better than I do. I understand that Stratford is due for redevelopment shortly.
    Mr. Leighton: The plans have been cancelled.
    Mr. Atkins: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Stratford station is due for redevelopment and access for the disabled will be taken into account when that redevelopment takes place.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my hon. Friend aware that most buses and minibuses are still largely inaccessible to severely disabled people? Can he give the House an idea of the progress being made in bringing new designs into use?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable authority on matters relating to the disabled. He is a member of my advisory committee, and who better. I confirm that I am working extremely hard, with all the Ministers in my Department, to ensure that access for the disabled is a high priority.

    Integrated Transport Policy
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to present an integrated transport policy to Parliament before 1992.
    Mr. Cecil Parkinson: We are pursuing a balanced policy, with record levels of investment over the next three years, to improve all aspects of the transport system.
    Sir David Steel: That sounds absolutely marvellous. Is not the difficulty that the outgoing chairman of British Rail has given a clear warning to the Government about the levels of investment in both line and rolling stock required for 1992? Is he aware that road users want more traffic taken off the roads and put on the railways and that airport congestion could be eased if there were an improved railway system and fewer short-haul flights? That is why an integrated transport system is needed.
    Mr. Parkinson: The only countries in Europe with a fully integrated transport system that we have located are East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Russia. Their electors do not seem terribly impressed with their integrated transport systems or with the people who tried to develop them.

    M1, West Yorkshire
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the M1-M62 link road in west Yorkshire to be started; what it is projected to cost; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robert Atkins: Civil engineering consultants have recently been appointed to investigate possible route alignments for this new link road. Subject to the completion of statutory procedures, construction work could start in the late 1990s.
    The initial estimated cost is £54 million.
    Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend's statement will be widely welcomed by local Members of Parliament and councillors of all political parties who lobbied his predecessor in favour of the scheme last year. Instead of building a dual carriageway to alleviate traffic congestion in west Yorkshire, may I suggest a motorway? May we have an assurance that environmental considerations will be taken fully into account when planning the scheme and that every opportunity will be provided for local residents who will be affected to have their say?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend has pressed his case strongly with my predecessor and since. I am grateful, as I am sure his constituents are, for his skill in doing so. He will know, as everyone on this side of the House does, that we are highly committed to environment matters in relation to building new roads. For example, we plant more trees than any other organisation except the Forestry Commission.

    M25
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about future improvements to the M25.
    Mr. Atkins: We propose to widen the M25 to dual four lanes. We shall also issue soon an action plan for the motorway following up the recent consultants' review which will propose a range of further improvements.
    Mr. Marshall: Although I congratulate my hon. Friend on his proposals to improve the M25, which is Britain's longest traffic jam, may I suggest that by the 21st century they will be inadequate? Will he consider building a son of the M25, an outer M25, to relieve the congestion on that motorway?
    Mr. Atkins: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to suggest that somehow the M25 was bad news. It is extremely good news. It is, by definition, a victim of its own success. Many people in villages on either side of it who suffered from congestion and environmental disadvantage before it was constructed are considerably better off. My hon. Friend's points about the improvement of the M25 are well taken, but he will understand that if it passed through his constituency, he might take a different view.

  THE ARTS

    Arts Funding (West Midlands)
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he intends to meet the director of West Midlands Arts to discuss what effect the uniform business rate may have on arts funding in the west midlands.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Luce): I have no plans to do so. The Arts Council is looking into the effects of the change on a sample of its clients among arts bodies nationwide and I am asking it to keep me informed.
    Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware that many people are worried about the impact of the poll tax on the many arts buildings that do not have charitable status? Is he further aware that the main public library in my constituency faces a rate increase of 24 per cent. and that the main headquarters library in Stafford faces an increase of 55 per cent? Does he see that as a poll tax on reading?
    Mr. Luce: The question is about the uniform business rate. The hon. Lady will realise that under the new law and rules an arts organisation that is a charitable body will receive up to 80 per cent. mandatory relief and that it is within the discretion of the local authority to give relief on the remaining 20 per cent. If an arts organisation is not a charitable body, it is subject to the normal law, as are all other businesses in the area. Obviously, it is impossible to have a clear picture of how the rate will affect different arts organisations in the area.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the uniform business rate will have a bad effect on many craftsmen in the west midlands and elsewhere, and that many craftsmen's shops and artists' studios are being significantly uprated? Will he promise to discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?
    Mr. Luce: I acknowledge the importance of the growing number of craftsmen in this country. A considerable number are classified as business people and to that extent will be subject to the new rules and regulations. I will
    14
    discuss this issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Evironment, but if they are classified as businesses they should not be treated as exceptions.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister should not be so complacent. He should examine the position in the west midlands and elsewhere. It is not good enough to come to the Dispatch Box and say that he is not sure how the uniform business rate will affect the arts. He should find out. That is his job and he should do it.
    Mr. Luce: The Department of the Environment estimates that, after the introduction of the uniform business rates, small businesses and businesses as a whole in the west midlands will pay less rate. Of course, it is impossible to be precise. Some arts organisations that are businesses will find that the amount they have to pay has declined, whereas others will find that their charge has increased. The important point about which we have to be absolutely clear is that organisations that are classified as charitable bodies will be in no worse a position. Indeed, with local authorities having full authority to give complete relief, they should be in a better position.

    Public Lending Right
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister for the Arts what he intends to provide for public lending right in the next financial year; and to how many authors this applies.
    Mr. Luce: Funding for the public lending right in 1990–91 is £3·5 million. The registrar forecasts that approximately 15,500 authors will receive payment in February 1991.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that our authors deserve generous support, and does he have any plans to increase support in the near future?
    Mr. Luce: It is very important that we continue to support authors through the public lending right for their contribution, through the library system, to public reading. In 1988–89 I was able to increase the budget by 27 per cent; in 1991–92 I should be able to increase it by 29 per cent; and in the following year, under the three-year funding rule, I shall be injecting an extra £250,000. The fund remains very strong and is making a contribution to authors whose work is of much value to the public.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that this kind of money goes to people whose faces fit? There is something that I should like him to consider seriously. Many of the people who were made redundant from the mining industry in Nottinghamshire have become writers. Those people need some encouragement, so the Minister should get off his backside and put some money in their direction. He should stop looking after Front-Bench Members who are writing books.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman's performance gets more dramatic every time he speaks. Last time I recommended him for a drama award; I think that this time I shall recommend him for a book award.
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister promised me a drama award last time, but I have not yet received it.
    Mr. Luce: A neutral panel is considering the matter.

    15
    It is impossible to be precise about the varying effects. Some will gain, whereas others will lose, but it is absolutely clear that those with charitable status will not lose.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one author who will benefit from this measure is Mr. Salman Rushdie? Is it not time for everyone in this country and elsewhere to accept the ancient saying:
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. I join my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in condemning most strongly the threat to Mr. Rushdie, which has been renewed recently. I endorse every word that my hon. Friend has said. One of the cardinal principles of our democracy is freedom of expression. It is a principle which we must uphold to the last.

    Local Government Act
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Minister for the Arts what guidelines exist for arts funding bodies that seek advice on section 28 of the Local Government Act.
    Mr. Luce: In July 1988, the Arts Council, in conjunction with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has had his question. He need not discuss the matter across the Chamber.
    Mr. Luce: In July 1988, the Arts Council, in conjunction with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, issued guidance on section 28 to arts organisations and other voluntary bodies. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued guidance to local authorities.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it possible for one company to act within the law by being funded by local authorities to perform a play with a homosexual theme, and at the same time act against the law in the sense that the local education authority decides that the play is unsuitable for showing in its schools? If not, can the Minister have a word with his colleagues in Tory-run Kent county council, who, when offered the chance to host Britten's "Death in Venice", played by the publicly funded Glyndebourne touring company, decided that it was unsuitable for showing in the Kent and Sussex schools festival—possibly because it breached section 28? Other Tory authorities do the same. Surely the principle needs to be established, and everybody should be allowed the most liberal interpretation of it.
    Mr. Luce: The only basis upon which section 28 can be flouted is if a local authority sets out an intention to promote homosexuality. I have no evidence that Kent county council in any way demonstrated that intention and there is no evidence to suggest that it was flouting that law.

    Arts Funding (East Midlands)
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has to increase funding for the arts in the east midlands.
    Mr. Luce: The funding of arts organisations is a matter for the Arts Council. In 1990–91 its grant to East Midlands Arts will increase by 10 per cent. and, taken with its direct spending in the region, amounts to a total of nearly £5 million.
    Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware that last week the board of directors of the Haymarket theatre announced losses of £500,000 in the past year? Is he also aware that the board will be meeting tonight and that it will make 13 employees of the theatre redundant? Will the Minister arrange for his officials to speak to the directors of the theatre to see whether the Government can provide funding to enable those jobs to be saved?
    Mr. Luce: I am aware of the important role of the Haymarket theatre in Leicester and the surrounding area, and in 1988 I had the pleasure of visiting the theatre. It has a high reputation, but I realise that it has acquired a deficit of some size. It is up to every management to cut its coat according to the cloth available. I understand that the Arts Council has increased its financing for that theatre next year by 7 per cent. and, of course, funding comes from local authorities and other areas. Once the management has cut its coat accordingly I hope that it will be possible for it to ensure that the theatre moves forward to produce its normal high-quality work.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Women Civil Servants
    Mr. Gow: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many women are employed in the Civil Service as a whole; and what proportion this is of the total so employed.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): There are 265,000 women in the Civil Service. That constitutes 45 per cent. of all staff.
    Mr. Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and I believe in the innate superiority of women? Do not the figures given by my right hon. Friend show that no rebuke should be delivered to the Minister for the Civil Service? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that those figures could equally well have been achieved without the equal opportunities legislation?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to pay tribute to the ability of women in the Civil Service as much as anywhere else. Given the total size of the Civil Service, it is right and good that nearly half our civil servants are women. However, at the senior levels—in the top grades—only 6 per cent. are women. But an increasing number of women are coming in under the high fliers scheme—just under 50 per cent. are now recruited from that scheme. I am sure that in the 1990s, with full equality of opportunity—I believe that that is what my hon. Friend is stressing as so important—more women will come to the top.

    Nottinghamshire
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent representations he has received from Nottinghamshire regarding matters within his responsibilities.
    Mr. Luce: I am not aware of any such representations.
    Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their intervention in the relocation of the Inland Revenue to Nottingham. Will the Minister commend the efforts of the county council in securing that relocation, particularly the chairman of its finance committee, Councillor Paddy Tipping? Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an eye on liaison and co-ordination between Government Departments and public bodies during relocations so that the difficulties that arose in this instance between British Rail, the Inland Revenue and landholdings do not recur?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and glad that a sizeable number of civil servants are moving to the Nottingham area—including not just the Inland Revenue, with more than 2,000, but the Driving Standards Agency headquarters which is to open in, I think, April with about 100 staff. I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I am glad that the pace of relocation from the south-east to other areas is quickening, and that larger numbers of civil servants are moving to other areas.

    Senior Professionals (Secondment)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps he is taking to encourage the secondment into the Civil Service of industrialists and other senior professionals.
    Mr. Luce: More exchanges have taken place in recent years and the Government are determined to continue the upward trend.
    Mr. Field: Why, of the 12 competitions held for the agencies set up by the Government, has only one outsider been appointed, Mr. David Beeton, to the Royal Historic Palaces Agency? There are also two directors-designate who will come from outside the Civil Service. Conversely, how many of the First Division Association have been seconded to industry?
    Mr. Luce: I cannot give a precise answer on the latter point. In the past 10 years the number of exchanges between the Civil Service and the private sector and commerce has almost doubled. In addition, there have been 500 exchanges between the Government and the non-commercial sector, including local government. We want to encourage that. The Government's policy is to encourage open competitions for the appointment of chief executives of agencies. We want to select people on their merit and get the best possible people to serve in those posts. There have been a number of open competitions but, as my hon. Friend said, only one non-civil servant been selected for the job. That does not mean that others may not be selected in the future.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met trade union representatives from the Civil Service; and what issues were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I met members of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants on 29 January to discuss physical security of Government establishments.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Minister next meets union representatives, will he give them a guarantee that those agencies which there is no immediate intention to privatise will remain in place for a minimum of five years to provide both stability and prospects for those working in them?
    Mr. Luce: Although I do not know whether it is right or wrong to set a time scale—I shall reflect on that point—the Government's policy is clear. Our first priority is to assess whether a service of Government is better suited to privatisation. If the Government decide that that is not so, the next option is to consider whether it should be an agency. It must be assumed that, in most circumstances, it will remain an agency for the foreseeable future. However, that does not preclude privatisation in the longer term.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the huge uncertainty and concern of people who are notified that their jobs are to disappear in Southend and be transferred to Liverpool or who are told that their services are being privatised? Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful and in the interests of good industrial relations if everyone so affected was issued with a sheet of paper explaining what will happen to their pension rights and security of employment and what employment rights they have? Should not the Government set an example to private employers to tell employees about their rights and obligations if their jobs are affected because of Government policy?
    Mr. Luce: I am very much aware that a considerable number of officials—particularly in Customs and Excise—work in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will convey to my noble Friend the Paymaster-General, who is in charge of relocation policies some of my hon. Friend's views. I shall reflect carefully on his points. Several movements are taking place in Customs and Excise. Some headquarters are being moved out of London to Southend, and a greater number of staff are moving to areas outside the south-east. As my hon. Friend knows, that is part of the Government's policy to encourage relocation wherever possible.
    Dr. Marek: When the Minister reflects on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will he also reflect on the advisability of giving a guarantee to all civil servants who find themselves in agencies that are liable to be privatised that they will be retained in the Civil Service by being transferred to another part of it?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman always misunderstands what the agency system is about. If the Government decide to establish an agency rather than privatise an organisation, the officials in that agency remain part of the Civil Service. There is no question of a change in their status. The hon. Gentleman's question is misleading; I am glad to have this chance to reaffirm the position.
    Mr. Bowis: When my right hon. Friend last heard from the Civil Service unions, were they able to congratulate

    19
    him on the first high promotion of a female part-time civil servant, and, secondly, on the introduction of two days' paternity leave for civil servants whose wives have babies?
    Mr. Luce: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the number of women part-timers in the Civil Service has risen to 12 per cent. of the complement. The fact that we have much more flexible employment policies and encourage part-timers is attracting more able women to serve. Over the past few years I have been surrounded by very able female advisers, many of whom have been part-timers.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent meetings he has had with Civil Service trade unions; and what items were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
    Mr. Skinner: As the Minister has been discussing the privatisation of parts of the Civil Service, would it not be a good idea if the Government, for the first time, allowed the Civil Service unions to hold a ballot on whether their members want to take part in a privatisation scheme?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman must agree that the most important factor is how whatever service we are considering can be most effectively managed for the country. If the Government take the view that it can be more effectively managed through privatisation, that is one road. If the hon. Gentleman wants a better use of our resources—it is taxpayers' money—he will accept that the other route to more effective management is to create agencies. Both routes are based on the criteria of good value for money and the best use of resources.

South Africa
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy towards South Africa following the release of Nelson Mandella.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): We warmly welcome the release of Nelson Mandela. He symbolises the aspirations of millions of South Africans for a non-racial democratic South Africa.
Since Mr. de Klerk became president, he has transformed the policy of the South African Government. He has initiated a series of steps including the commitment to abolish much of the remains of so-called petty apartheid, the unbanning of political organisations and now the release of Nelson Mandela. All these steps have been demanded time and again by the British Government, by the international community and by the House. Taken together, they create a completely new climate in South Africa—a climate in which dialogue can begin about the massive task of dismantling apartheid peacefully. This new climate presents a decisive challenge to those, black and white, who wish to maintain the old orthodoxies of confrontation.
We urge the African National Congress, the Pan-Africanist Congress, the Inkatha movement, the various white parties and all other political organisations in South Africa to rise to this challenge, end violence, and enter negotiations.
It is vital to send a signal to the white community that President de Klerk's steps will find a response from the international community. That is why the British Government believe that it makes sense to stop discouraging investment and tourism in South Africa.
Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having consistently called for the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela for many years, we in the Labour party express our profound satisfaction that he is no longer in prison? We emphasise that he should never have been in prison in the first place. We welcome his release and other recent steps taken by President de Klerk. We trust that successful negotiations will soon begin to bring about a South Africa with a vote for every man and woman on a common roll.
Is the right hon Gentleman aware that although Mr. Mandela is no longer in prison, he is not a free man? He cannot live where he chooses. He has no vote. For him and for the rest of the non-white majority in South Africa, that country continues to be a prison and it will be until apartheid and the police state are completely dismantled.
Does the Secretary of State recollect the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kuala Lumpur last October.? The Prime Minister signed up—to use her phraseology—a statement which affirmed that the:
"justification for sanctions against South Africa"
was
"to abolish apartheid by bringing Pretoria to the negotiating table and keeping it there until that change was irreversibly secured".
As that objective to which the Prime Minister put her signature has clearly not been achieved, how can she call
22
for relaxation in sanctions—particularly the ban on direct investment, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ban has been responsible for one third of the 100 billion rand of losses to the South African economy caused by sanctions over the past four years? It is by far the most effective sanction. Is not that precisely why the Prime Minister wants to end that sanction?
Mr. Mandela has called for sanctions to be maintained. Should we trust the British Prime Minister, whose every action has been to prop up apartheid, or should we pay heed to Mr. Mandela, who has given more than 27 years of his life fighting the injustice of apartheid?
The world has made its choice, and that is why the Prime Minister is isolated in the United Nations, isolated in the Commonwealth and isolated in the European Community. It is no thanks to her, but with all thanks and praise to Mr. Mandela and the millions of other Africans fighting for justice, that apartheid is doomed and will be destroyed.
Mr. Waldegrave: It is characteristic of the right hon. Member not to say a word of recognition about the courage shown in the steps that Mr. de Klerk has taken.
The sanctions that were introduced in 1986—and some of them will continue—by the European Community were aimed explicitly at bringing about a national dialogue. Mr. Mandela has said that he believes that national dialogue is liable to begin within days. If we do not recognise the courage behind the steps that have been taken—and that I hope will be taken, in response, by the other side—we would not be doing the right thing. The House is owed an explanation by the right hon. Member, on behalf of his party, whether its policy is to step up mandatory sanctions. If that remains its policy, Opposition Members are, as usual, completely out of touch.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a lot of support from Conservative Members for what he has said, and especially for his welcome for the release of Mr. Mandela?
If we hope for the survival of Mr. Gorbachev should not we equally hope for the survival of Mr. de Klerk, as long as white majority rule continues?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition appear to be too obtuse to understand that there is a serious danger of a Right-wing backlash from some elements of the white population—possibly among the Afrikaners or even among the security forces, which could be accentuated if there is no recognition given by the outside world to the dramatic and imaginative steps that President de Klerk has announced?
Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I find it depressing that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has used his eloquence to try to get a dialogue going in the Arab-Israel conflict, and has expressed enthusiasm for and welcomed the Soviet Union into the community of nations, but he is so blinkered that he cannot see the window of opportunity here, and the possibility for real progress in South Africa. To let that slip by sticking in the old tired positions would be a terrible waste of opportunity.
Sir David Steel: Does the Minister accept that yesterday some of us were

23
simply appalled when we found that the first words that the Prime Minister could bring herself to utter on the momentous release of Nelson Mandela were about increasing British investment in South Africa? Will he try to get her to understand that the best way to secure British investment in South Africa is to pay more attention in future to the views of the ANC and other movements that are pressing for the future of democracy in that country? While President de Klerk is, of course, to be congratulated on the brave steps that he has taken, does the Minister accept that South Africa cannot be treated as a normal state until the legal entrenchment of apartheid is lifted?
Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on one point. The Prime Minister's first words were an expression of delight; which, I am sure, is shared by all hon. Members; at Mr. Mandela's release. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that South Africa is at the beginning of a long process. We say that surely we must recognise—as we are trying to do in relation to the Soviet Union and the Palestine Liberation Organisation—that those who wish to sit down and negotiate need our support. If we do not provide any response at all the right hon. Gentleman will surely blame us when the white backlash sweeps de Klerk away.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: While recognising that risk and the reality of what my right hon. Friend says, may I ask him whether he should not differentiate between the relaxation of some sanctions now unilaterally by Britain and the encouragement worldwide of doing away with sanctions overall? The Government have made subtle and positive contributions to bringing about what has happened in South Africa. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will continue their subtle handling of this matter?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. Those who are opposed to dialogue in South Africa know very well the position of the British Government. That is why white extremists have been shooting at the British embassy in Pretoria. As my hon. Friend says, our approach remains careful and, I hope, subtle. We want to see de Klerk's position strengthened because, as Mr. Mandela has said in the most eloquent language, de Klerk stands honourably for dialogue.
Mr. Robert Hughes: On this momentous occasion of historic importance, which has brought great joy to millions of people throughout the world, will the Minister reflect on what has been happening over the weekend in relation to Government policy? Does he recognise the great hand of reconciliation that has been offered by Nelson Mandela? Does he recognise that the pillars of apartheid remain in place and that Nelson Mandela has said that until those pillars are substantially removed and there are substantial negotiations, sanctions must stay? Instead of always talking about offering carrots to President de Klerk, what about offering a little comfort and support to the people of South Africa instead of the contemptible, craven attitude that we get from the Dispatch Box?
Mr. Waldegrave: All the people of South Africa, black and white, need our support and hands from both sides
24
have been reaching out for reconciliation. The steps that we have taken are to support that process and I am sure that we are right so to do.
Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Mandela's support for the continued armed struggle is a chilling reminder that, regrettably, violence is still a part of African National Congress policy? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lifting of sanctions will ensure the prosperity of the black South African and that it is only under such conditions that the world can reasonably hope for peaceful reform and meaningful change?
Mr. Waldegrave: At his press conference this morning, Mr. Mandela spoke about the need for peace and said that he foresaw dialogue soon. We should surely concentrate on what he is saying and on such elements of the present situation. We should be seeking to support that hope of reconciliation.
Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was one of the most notorious apologists for the South African regime.
Will the Minister explain why the Prime Minister has simply refused to recognise that the pressure of the international community and the liberation movement in South Africa brought about the release of Nelson Mandela and the removal of the ban on the ANC? Will he make the strongest possible representations to the South African Government on how their security forces are completely out of control? Many of its members, perhaps the large majority, are clearly sympathetic to the forces of the ultra-Right and the Nazi terror groups that want to assassinate Mr. Mandela and refuse to recognise the advances that must be made in that country.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is well known as a spokesman for consensus and moderation. He is right that the Government have found it necessary—with, I am sure, the support of the House—to make protests again and again about the behaviour of the South African security forces. The hon. Gentleman was not fair in his remarks about yesterday's events. Mr. Dullah Omar, one of the pricnipal organisers for the Mass Democratic Movement at the large march and demonstration yesterday, did not blame the police for the violence that occurred. He said that he was not satisfied with the security arrangements made by the organisers.
Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the South African Government could not have run the risk of releasing Mr. Mandela—his release is welcome—if President Gorbachev had not withdrawn his support for militant revolutionary forces in central and southern Africa? Will he congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the contribution that she and former President Reagan made by standing up to the imperialist advance in Africa which has been halted? Thanks to its being halted, the chances of fruitful dialogue have increased.
Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is right. The completely transformed relationship between East and West and this country, the United States and the Soviet

25
Union has contributed—many other things have also contributed—to the change in atmosphere. We are well aware that the advice of the Soviet Union to the ANC, the South-West Africa People's Organisation and other organisations in southern Africa has been to seek dialogue and peace.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the Minister reconsider his remarks about the white backlash sweeping away President de Klerk? Should not he be more positive in his approach to the liberal whites and the black majority in South Africa? Were not his earlier remarks very unfortunate?
Mr. Waldegrave: If I spoke with urgency, I meant it. The person who is under most immediate pressure from his constituency is President de Klerk, which is why it is right that we should signal to him that there are benefits for his constituency in going down the road to peace and dialogue.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend encourage, in every international forum that he attends, a full and generous response from the international community to the fundamental changes that have taken place in South Africa, and which need to take place in the future? Does he agree that the hopes and aspirations of the black community in South Africa will be best served by peaceful and steady reform and not by a headlong rush into what may be a very dangerous period?
Mr. Waldegrave: The challenge facing all sides is to transfer the most powerful economy in Africa to its rightful owners—all the people of South Africa—under a proper constitution and without revolutionary chaos in the process. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about that. The steps that have been taken by Mr. de Klerk, which have transformed the situation away from the simple certainties of the past few years and to which we are already seeing a response from Mr. Mandela, deserve our wholehearted support.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware that it will have been noted that he went out of his way to praise the courage of President de Klerk but said nothing about the courage of the tens of thousands of people who struggled for a generation to bring about yesterday's historical event? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister is widely regarded in this country and abroad as a fifth columnist for apartheid? In her headlong rush to drop sanctions before there has been a word from de Klerk about bringing down the fundamentals of apartheid and about one person, one vote, is not she—like collaborators and fifth columnists throughout time—exposed as redundant, marginal and out of step?
Mr. Waldegrave: I do not agree with the extravagance of the hon. Lady's language. The importance of the events in South Africa should not be underestimated. It is easy to imagine this opportunity being lost because we do not rise to the scale of the events but stick to the old rhetoric—that is the danger which faces us. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is as determined as any of us in the House to see the destruction of apartheid. We need, therefore, to get negotiations under way quickly, and that is what Mr. de Klerk is doing. Hon. Members have paid tribute many times to those who have suffered and who continue to
26
suffer under apartheid. It is worth thinking of those people in South Africa who are not alive today and who could have contributed to this process of peace. If Mr. Steve Biko were alive today, he would contribute to the process of reconciliation and negotiation.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I welcome the call by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for a measured response to this historic event. That response should be co-ordinated to the maximum extent with our European Community partners, the Commonwealth and, in particular, the United States, which has taken a strong line on sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that sanctions were imposed not for the release of one distinguished and courageous leader from prison but to help bring down a system that was seen as unjust by the international community?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right—the objective of the House and of the world is the destruction of apartheid. It is vital to get negotiations going. In 1986, the Council of Ministers reaffirmed
"the urgent need for a genuine national dialogue"
in South Africa and proposed various sanctions to bring that about. We believe, as Mr. Mandela clearly believes, that that national dialogue is about to begin.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a day for private Members' motions and that an important statement is to follow this private notice question. I shall call two more Members from each side, and then I am afraid that we must move on.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The Minister of State referred a number of times to giving "signals" to the present regime in South Africa. Is not the concern throughout the House, including that of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), about the fact that the Government are contributing to confusing signals? As the right hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate of a common foreign policy in the European Community, will he assure us that the British Government will not take a position with the Council of Ministers whereby it seeks to withdraw any sanctions at this stage? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no parallel between the democratic movement in central and eastern Europe and the changes in South Africa? The South African regime is based on institutional racism. That is qualitatively different from any other lack of democracy worldwide.
Mr. Waldegrave: The lack of democracy in Stalinist Russia was built on institutionalised persecution of the population by a so-called vanguard. The institutional racism of South Africa is an equal or greater evil. Both are evils, and we should welcome the destruction of both.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the European Community. We will discuss these matters with our partners, but we do not believe that it would be right at this moment to send no signal to the South African Government.
Sir Ian Lloyd: I give the warmest possible endorsement to my right hon. Friend's analysis and the sentiments that he expressed. Does he agree that the three greatest dangers now are the extremism of the extreme Right, the extremism of the extreme Left and the

27
extremism of the extremely stupid? In the light of the analysis of sub-Saharan Africa in the recent report of the World Bank, would not it be extremely stupid to go along the lines suggested by Mr. Mandela and strengthen sanctions when, as my right hon. Friend said, the South African economy is the powerhouse of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa? That is what we must now recognise and support.
Mr. Waldegrave: I find my hon. Friend's analysis rather attractive. The present circumstances have their parallels: the extremists on both sides sometimes end up in the same position. I have never been able to understand why it should be thought that damaging the economy of South Africa further would bring about any progress at such a juncture.
My hon. Friend asked about Mr. Mandela and sanctions. Mr. Mandela has made it perfectly clear that he is a loyal member of the ANC, and the view that he has expressed is ANC policy. No one imagined that he would change ANC policy overnight, and there was no surprise whatever when he took the stance that he took.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister's view—reflected in his answer—is open to a wholly different interpretation: that apartheid is a system of economic exploitation, made possible by the denial of political rights, and that the profits from it accrue to foreign investors, many of whom live in this country? The Government's opposition to sanctions has been motivated more by a wish to preserve the economic interests of their business friends than by any interest in the Africans themselves.
Mr. Waldegrave: Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has the wrong conspiracy theory. If he wants to examine the way in which economic pressures are affecting the position, he should recognise that it is perfectly clear that those who want dialogue and fundamental change in South Africa are now to be found among South Africa's business community. They know that without the use of all the country's resources—including both blacks and whites—the economy will begin to be damaged, and they are a force for progress.
Mr. Michael Knowles: Let me follow up what my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir Ian Lloyd) said about the World Bank report. There is only one democratic country in the whole of Africa, and that is Botswana. We can see Namibia becoming independent next month, and we have high hopes of freedom in South Africa. Will the British Government then press for the abolition of the one-party state in Zimbabwe, Zambia and Tanzania?
Mr. Waldegrave: The World Bank report makes depressing reading. The great prize in southern Africa is a peaceful transition of Africa's most powerful economy to its proper ownership—ownership by all South Africa's people. We believe that Mr. Mandela wants that, and that Mr. de Klerk is entering on the great task. We welcome what Mr. de Klerk has done, and for that reason we support him.

Electricity Privatisation
3.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about electricity privatisation, the publication of the draft regulatory licences for the industry and the non-fossil fuel obligation.
Good progress continues to be made in preparing the electricity supply industry for vesting on 31 March. The House will be aware that the second commencement order under the Electricity Act 1989 was made at the end of January. Today I am taking another important step towards completing the restructuring of the industry.
I have today made available to the House copies of revised drafts of the licences to be issued to the successors of the Central Electricity Generating Board and area electricity boards, which were initially published on 10 January 1989. The revised drafts take account of the commitments made during the passage of the Electricity Act, and of consultations since the original drafts were published. Other licensees will receive licences based on those drafts, but tailored to their particular requirements. Regulations are being laid today setting out how to apply for a licence and the details of the application procedure. The exemption order identifying those who will not require a licence is also being tabled today.
The principal changes in the draft licences published today are in the conditions dealing with price control, security of supply and the transition to a competitive market. The revised conditions are explained in detail in the explanatory notes that accompany the licences.
The average price for all customers supplied by the public electricity supply companies will be controlled by an RPI-X+Y formula, where Y represents the actual costs to the companies of purchasing the electricity supplied. Customers taking more than 1 MW will benefit from the competition in supply that will be introduced by privatisation. I expect many of them to enjoy price reductions. It may take some time for customers to gain experience of the market and negotiate terms. I have therefore sought an undertaking from the industry that it will use its best endeavours to offer a one-year real price freeze to customers taking more than 1 MW.
Customers taking less than 1MW will benefit from an addition to the price control. Although the industry has yet to propose a final figure, I see no reason why the average price to these customers should rise by much more than the current rate of inflation this year. The price control should prevent any further real increases before the end of March 1993. Indeed, the public electricity supply companies could well be able to offer some real price reductions to these customers in this period.
I believe that the combination of these controls will be more effective than the yardstick price control proposed in the original draft licences. Altogether I do not expect the average price for all customers to rise in real terms this year.
All these expectations on prices allow for the effect of the fossil fuel levy, which I intend to set for 1990–91 at a rate of 10·6 per cent. on the value of final sales. I expect the rate of levy to decline significantly over the next eight years. I shall shortly be laying regulations under which the levy will be established and collected.

29
I also intend to lay at the same time an order setting the initial non-fossil fuel obligation for the public electricity supply companies. The intention of the obligation is not only to ensure that existing and committed nuclear plant in England and Wales is contracted for; it is also to encourage the development of commercial renewable energy sources. Around 300 projects have been put forward to the area boards in response to that policy. The Government have been extremely encouraged by this response and wish to ensure a full contribution from renewables to the NFFO. Given the size of the response, it has not been possible to assess all those projects fully by the time the initial order needs to be made.
Accordingly, the initial order will cover only nuclear capacity. I intend to allow a further two months for the area boards to complete their negotiations with renewable operators and I shall then lay a second order relating specifically to renewables. That will ensure that renewables projects can be assessed fairly and a proper contribution obtained.
The initial order will, therefore, amount to some 8,000 MW or so in total for the period 1990–91 to 1997–98. As I told the House on 9 November, the Government will review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. Decisions about the level of the obligation beyond 1998 will be taken then.
Returning to the licences, the conditions on security of supply have been amended to ensure that all suppliers meet the current standards of security, except where their customers choose otherwise. Suppliers may meet that condition by becoming members of the new electricity trading pool that is being established since the price of electricity in the pool will include a capacity charge that reflects the value of secure supplies to customers. Suppliers will have economic incentives to ensure that sufficient generating plant is available. I believe that that approach will provide secure supplies more effectively than central planning by a monopoly supplier.
As for competition in supply, the licences now incorporate provisions to implement the decisions announced on 29 September 1989. Those provide for an orderly and stable transition to a fully competitive market by allowing other suppliers to compete with the area supply companies for customers taking more than 1 MW at the outset, for customers taking more than 100 kW after four years, and for all customers after eight years.
The licences, therefore, contain corresponding transitional constraints on the premises that such competitors can supply. If they apply for licences to supply customers falling within those restrictions, I will look to the Director General of Electricity Supply to advise me on whether such licences should be issued.
Although I shall be disposed to act in accordance with the restrictions announced on 29 September, I accept that I will need to exercise discretion to deal with particular circumstances that already exist or may arise. Such cases will be considered on their merits. The licences also contain transitional limits on the extent to which National Power and PowerGen can engage in direct sales to enable competition in supply and new supply arrangements to develop.
The arrangements that I have set out today mark the successful achievement of another stage in this privatisation. When the new companies are vested on 31 March, this country will have the most competitive electricity supply industry in the world. I know that those in the
30
industry are keen to be privatised to respond to the new challenges and to rid themselves of the dead hand of the public sector. I am sure also that the public will welcome the benefits of competition and will seize the opportunities to invest in the new companies.
Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I realise that my first point is not a matter for him, but will he confirm for the benefit of my Scottish colleagues that a statement on what is to happen to the electricity industry in Scotland will be made in the House?
The Secretary of State told us about his amazing RPI-X+Y formula, but there must be a more important definition of Y. Everyone in the country will want to know why it is necessary for there to be any electricity price increases. Will he confirm that price increases are quite unnecessary and are needed only to fatten up the industry for privatisation? Is it not the case that, over the past three years, coal prices have gone down by 6 per cent., electricity prices have gone up by 12 per cent., the generating board's profits have gone up by 90 per cent., and the new coal contract envisages further reductions in the price of coal? So why is it necessary to have any price increases for consumers?
The Secretary of State is an accountant and he is usually fairly precise, but his statement was rather vague about price increases to be faced by major industrial consumers in particular, such as the special steels industry, the chemicals industry and paper and board mills. Will he guarantee that he will not handicap those companies by enormous price increases in the run-up to 1992? What will be the increases for domestic consumers in future years?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that a nuclear levy of 10·6 per cent. means that nuclear power costs must now be at least 40 per cent. more than the cost of electricity produced at conventional stations? If that is the case, why does he insist that the most expensive stations on the system provide the base load while the cheapest power stations on the system are not run all the time? Surely that is the reverse of common sense.
I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive my colleagues and me if we do not comment on the licences, because we have had the details only since 3 o'clock and we have not had an opportunity to consider them in detail. However, do the licences place an obligation to supply upon the two main generating companies? If not, how can there be any guarantee of security of supply? Will the licences promote energy conservation by the distribution companies? Will they require the generating companies to install equipment to clean up flue gases, or is there truth in the rumour that the right hon. Gentleman is allowing the generating companies to wriggle out of their obligation to clean up flue gases? In other words, is it true that he is willing to accept them continuing in their present dirty ways, as they have for the past two decades, to make the industry more attractive to private purchasers?
We welcome the news that there are many applications for renewables, but will the Secretary of State reconsider the position and allow combined heat and power to be included in that category, and thus give it the boost that it needs?
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that everything in his statement amounts to his putting privatisation first, and that the interests of industrial consumers, the balance of payments, the environment and

31
domestic consumers are all being put second to the requirement that has been placed on him by the Prime Minister, which is get the industry sold off as quickly as possible?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked me 10 questions. He is right that his first question—about Scotland—is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I shall certainly put it to him.
The hon. Member then talked about price increases and about fattening up the industry for privatisation, as he put it. He must make up his mind fairly soon about whether we are fattening up the industry for privatisation or selling it for a song. The fact is that we are doing neither. We intend to privatise the industry at a proper and fair price. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said about price increases, he would have heard me say that I did not expect that on average there would be any price increases in real terms and that prices would stay the same in real terms. I shall not quote the Labour party's record on electricity prices as there are plenty of other questions to answer.
The hon. Gentleman asked me not to be vague about large users of electricity. I certainly shall not be vague and I have said that I expect the industry to offer terms to the large users and to any user over 1M W of consumption and to keep the price increases to the RPI for the current year. Thereafter, they will be in a position to negotiate freely for prices within the market and I know that a number of them are already setting about that task.
The hon. Gentleman's fourth question related to domestic prices. I have said that customers below 1 MW will have the benefits of the overall price control and of regulation. I see no reason why their prices should increase by much more than the rate of inflation this year, although the area boards have not yet made their proposals. The price control formula will ensure that price rises are limited so that there will be no real increase in prices for the next two years. As I have said, they are maximum figures, and the area boards could well do better for many of their customers.
With regard to the fossil fuel levy that I announced, the hon. Gentleman is misleading the House if he states that it is an additional impost on electricity consumers. Consumers pay for the cost of nuclear power in their bills at the moment. The levy simply brings the matter out in the open, as set out in the Electricity Act 1989, and there will be no increase in the price of nuclear power as a result of the change. The levy will still be there, but, at 10·6 per cent., it is less than a lot of people thought, and it will decrease over the next eight years.
On the question of the obligation to supply, or the security of supply, I believe that the present arrangements under the Electricity Act are better than the previous bureaucratic arrangements of the Central Electricity Generating Board. Under the Electricity Act, the area boards are required to offer terms to any customers in their area and that offer will be backed up by the licensing conditions and by stiff financial penalties. Therefore, they will have a clear legal obligation to contract for sufficient supplies to meet the requirements in their areas.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important matter of energy conservation. He should remember that over the past 10 years there has been a substantial
32
improvement in energy efficiency in Britain. While there has been a 20 per cent. increase in gross domestic product, we have used the same levels of energy. We expect that to continue. It is very much in the consumer's interest to pursue improvements in energy efficiency. Several proposals in my statement will improve energy efficiency further. First—
Mr. Jeff Rooker: How much longer?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend asked me 10 questions and I have not finished answering them. If he does not like it, he should speak to his hon. Friend about it.
The overwhelmingly important factor in efficiency of energy consumption is to create competition in generation. The area boards will have a responsibility to encourage energy efficiency and will draw up codes of practice.
The Government stand by their commitment to ensure that the European convention on flue gases, to which we are signatories, is met. Proposals will be made to do that in the most effective and efficient way possible. Negotiations on the most effective way will include desulphurisation retrofitting of electricity stations. In some stations, it will not be necesary because of the planned changeover to gas. Negotiations with the industry are being held now. I confirm that the Government are fully committed to the European directive. The industry will be fully committed to any environmental matters that arise out of the Environmental Protection Bill currently going through the House.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked me about renewables and combined heat and power procedures. We did not include CHP power stations in the renewables. We believe that CHP proposals can provide some of the most efficient forms of electricity generation. There will be a great incentive for builders of electricity generating stations to use those principles wherever appropriate. In the initial period, most CHP proposals will come within the proposals for own-generation, which will be free of the fossil fuel levy. Builders of power stations will benefit from that.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about privatisation. The purpose of privatisation is to provide customers with a better deal by encouraging competition in electricity generation. It can be seen from the date of my statement that that has already begun. At the end of the transitional period all consumers will benefit.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I always endeavour to look after the interests of Back Benchers and give them at least as long as Front-Bench Members. However, I ask hon. Members to put their questions succinctly so that we can get on with the business set down. This is a private Members' day.
Mr. John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was not long ago that the Labour party forecast price increases after privatisation in excess of 20 per cent.? Now Labour Members grumble that prices will increase at the level of inflation, something which the Labour Government did not achieve. Will he accept the thanks of consumers for the steps that he has taken to stabilise electricity prices after privatisation? Will he

33
confirm that as competition brings itself to bear in the electricity supply industry there will be a downward presure on prices in the longer term?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the last five years of the Labour Government, the price of electricity increased by 6 per cent. in real terms for industrial customers and 5 per cent. for domestic consumers. A stabilisation in real terms is a substantial improvement on the record of the Labour party. As competition is seen to work, there will be a downward pressure on all prices.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Will the Secretary of State deny that for the past 12 months and for some time ahead every quarterly domestic electricity bill will be at least £10 higher as a result of the preparation for privatisation? Will he further deny that the sale price for the industry compared with its asset value will be so low as to make all other privatisations look responsible?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I do not accept that. On average, prices will not increase over the whole range. The electricity industry will be privatised at what will be seen to be a fair and proper price.
Mr. Malcolm Moss: Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which shows that privatisation is well on target to meet the proposed timetable, which is excellent news for domestic electricity customers, does he agree that heavy industrial users have short memories? In the past five years of this Government industrial electricity prices have decreased by 10 per cent., whereas in the last five years of the Labour Government they increased by 6 per cent.
Mr. Wakeham: I have provided a cap for large industrial users in the first year. Afterwards they will be able to negotiate prices in a competitive market. Many expect to benefit from price reductions.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement today is so important and significant for consumers and the electricity industry that it should be the subject not merely of a statement but of scrutiny and debate in the House? In his carefully worded statement he said that he would not expect prices to rise above the rate of inflation. Many consumers will see that as faith, hope and charity because he is not in a position to guarantee that that will happen. Many knowledgeable people in the industry believe that prices will increase substantially. Does the Secretary of State agree that many consumers see as most important, not the question of competition, but the security of supply? We do not want the lights to go out.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman can speculate about prices. I have given the House the information as best I can and the figures I gave are accurate. It is interesting to remember how wide of the mark previous speculation has been, and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark, too.
I recognise the importance of the security of supply. As I pointed out, the arrangements that we are making now are better than existing arrangements whereby the security of supply or the obligation to supply is a planning decision for the CEGB. Under the new arrangements the area boards must offer terms to the customers in their area. Those terms and the generation for which they have
34
contracted is backed up by licences. It will be a licence condition that the suppliers contract for adequate supplies and there will be severe financial penalties if they get it wrong. That will provide the security of supply that we all want and expect to see at a better, more economic cost than previously.
Sir Trevor Skeet: While I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his clear statement, may I refer to the non-fossil fuel obligation? It is important to bear in mind the size of the nuclear industry arid not to wait until the review in 1994 when it may be too late. Nuclear power stations must be built and we must have an ongoing research and development programme. Unless that is done, the country could be in great difficulty with its electricity supply.
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate my hon. Friend's long-term concern and interest in the nuclear industry. We have organised the industry with Nuclear Electric and a good level of management to ensure that our substantial nuclear capacity is used to best advantage in the interim period. Meantime, it is right to give a degree of certainty to what will happen in the short term. That is why I said that we shall review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. but remain committed to a long-term role for competitive nuclear power. Between now and 1994 we shall be giving a considerable amount of thought, and, if necessary, devoting a considerable amount of research, to establishing the best way forward after that.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: As I am sure the Minister accepts, we welcome the identification of the role of renewables, which he has emphasised. Can he tell us more about how renewables projects will be assessed fairly and properly, as he said they would be? He referred to the dead hand of the public sector, but he has had to use that so-called dead hand to maintain the life of the nuclear industry. How does he propose to deal with the older Magnox stations in respect of which decisions may have to be made before 1994? Can he say precisely how he intends to undertake the review in 1994?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know that I can say anything further in reply to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, the first two points that he makes are important. As I have said, about 300 renewables projects have been put forward for consideration. These extend right across the range of all the sorts of renewables that the hon. Gentleman and others will be aware of. They amount, in total, to a capacity of between 1GW and 2GW—a substantial improvement on what we have at the moment. It would be idle to pretend that they are all likely to be developed sufficiently to be included in the obligation. We want to see whether these projects, with the financial assistance of the obligation over the period, appear to have a viable future. If so, we shall give them every encouragement.
With regard to the Magnox stations, the position is quite simple. Subject to the overriding safety considerations of the nuclear inspectorate, the life of some Magnox stations may be extended somewhat. That is what we shall seek to do. It may be that in some cases additional expenditure will be necessary. The first consideration is safety, but if the life of a station can be extended we believe that that would be a good idea.
Mr. Peter Rost: Now that my right hon. Friend, for very sensible reasons, has arranged a transition period, during which it will be necessary to restrict free competition, can he give us an assurance that he is satisfied that, with regard to investment intentions, new independent producers will have the same incentive during that period? If not, he will not get the benefit of diversity of supply and genuine competition at the end of the transition period.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are very anxious indeed that a sufficiently large number of independent projects should come forward. We know of about 20 that are being considered at the moment. We believe that the publication of the licences, which will give potential investors in independent generation more detail about how to proceed, will bring forward further projects. It is important that potential investors should know that they will be very welcome to become suppliers. So long as they meet the technical requirements, there is no reason why they should not be part of a highly competitive and expanding generating business.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Why does not the Secretary of State recognise that, in the private sector, energy conservation and the development of renewable sources of energy will always come second to the profit motive? Would not it be in our best interests, in terms of energy and environmentally, for this important industry to remain in the public sector?
Mr. Wakeham: I should expect the hon. Gentleman to say something like that, but it does not fit very well with the facts. We have a non-fossil fuel obligation. In particular, we are obliged to encourage renewable sources to play their part during the initial period—while they are being established. I think that that is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. We have set up the machinery, and it appears to be working even better than we thought it would. At some stage the hon. Gentleman will regret what he has just said.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As the propaganda war about the privatisation of electricity gathers momentum, does my right hon. Friend agree not only that industrial users have benefited greatly from our management of electricity supply, but that domestic consumers, householders, can be grateful? Is it not the case that, over the past five years, they have benefited from an 8 per cent. decrease, in real terms, in their electricity bills, whereas during the last five years of the Labour Government they suffered an increase, in real terms, of 9 per cent.? Whom should the householder trust with the management of electricity—the present Government, or the Opposition, who, when in office, raised prices?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The privatised electricity supply industry will greatly benefit the consumer.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the price increase, which he described as not being a real one, includes the nuclear or fossil-fuel levy, call it what one will? Can he assure the House that the nuclear levy will not increase when the first costs of decommissioning start to come through?
Mr. Wakeham: The indications of the prices that I gave include the fossil fuel levy, which must be paid. The levy will put Nuclear Electric in a cash positive position for the first eight years of its operation and, during that time, fossil fuel will be on a declining path. The company will be able to meet all its obligations during that time, including decommissioning costs.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the passage of the Electricity Bill the non-fossil fuel obligation was universally branded by the Opposition as a device for the perpetuation of nuclear power? Does he agree that the range of options for renewables that have now been introduced not represent only a direct contradiction of that belief, but an indication of the extent to which the process of increasing the supply of renewables has been helped by the privatisation process?
Mr. Wakeham: The process of privatisation appears to be working extremely well with regard to renewables and will be beneficial to the environment. In about two months' time I intend to lay the order about renewables, but I should make it clear that it will relate to the initial tranche of renewables. We have reserved an additional 600 MW for further renewable projects after that time. If that allocation does not appear to be enough in the light of experience, we shall give serious consideration to increasing it still further.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Surely the truth of the matter is that when the Government decided to set forth on their privatisation of electricity after the general election the first thing they needed to do was to allow the industry to increase prices massively to fatten up the enterprise. The next thing the Government did was to allow the industry another 8 per cent. in accordance with the RPI and then to announce that they would allow the nuclear section of the industry to be subsidised to the tune of about £10 billion with the decommissioning of the Magnox nuclear reactors. Now the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the next price increase will be based on two variables—minus X plus Y. He has told us what Y is, but he has not told us what X is. My guess is that X represents the electoral factor in the run-up to the next general election.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, goes wide of the point. I know that the hon. Gentleman watches such things carefully and I advise him to watch some of the statements made by his hon. Friends the Members for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) as to exactly what they would do to the coal industry should they ever have the opportunity. The hon. Gentleman should consider those statements carefully as that would be a more productive use of his time. Y equals input costs, X represents cost savings through efficiency. It is a minus figure.
Sir Peter Hordern: It is welcome to hear that price increases to the domestic consumer will be contained, at least in the next two years, within the rate of inflation. From the taxpayers' point of view, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether substantial sums will be required to write off assets before privatisation occurs, as they were for the water industry? If not, what will be the position?
Mr. Wakeham: There may be some slight increase in domestic prices this year, but for the next two years after that they will be contained in real terms. For the figures for the privatisation of the company, my hon. Friend will have to wait until we produce the prospectus. We are in the process of producing balance sheets for the companies before privatisation. We shall ensure that the assets are sold at a proper and realistic figure.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have an obligation to protect private Members' business. I shall call three more Members from each side and then, I regret, we shall have to move on.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I echo the earlier plea for a separate Scottish statement. This is an extremely important matter, and I see that there is a Scottish Office Minister on the Treasury Bench. Will the Secretary of State obtain confirmation from the Scottish Office that such a statement is intended and thus avoid the suggestion that one hand does not know, or is not in tandem with, what the other is doing? Is not the truth of this afternoon's statement that all the tough political decisions are being postponed beyond the latest date of the next election? Why, in the transitional period, has the Secretary of State not found room for incentives for energy efficiency? Will he explain what he meant by this statement, which occurred among a lot of ministerial gobbledegook:
"The licences, therefore, contain corresponding transitional constraints on the premises which such competitors can supply."
May we have that in English?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall pass on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the request for a statement on Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for me.
With regard to the juicy extract that the hon. Gentleman gave from my statement, I meant that, because there is an eight-year transitional period for the introduction of competition, for the first part of that period, customers with more than 1 MW of consumption will be free of all restraint. At the end of four years, the limit will be reduced to 10 kW. Thereafter, there will be no constraint. During that period, there must be a regulation to stop anybody supplying electricity to those areas that are the exclusive purview of the area boards. The regulations cover that.
Mr. Kevin Barron: A free market.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman says, "A free market". He should consider how this will benefit the coal industry during that period.
Mr. Michael Jack: In response to the remarks of those Opposition Members who wear their environmental credentials on their sleeve, will my right hon. Friend confirm that 34 per cent. of the principal greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide—comes from coal-fired power stations? Will he confirm that there is nothing in his statement to prevent the nuclear workers in my constituency from making their contribution to addressing this environmental problem?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right. A substantial amount of the greenhouse gases that are produced from
38
power generation in this country come from fossil-burning power stations. Nuclear power stations have a substantial advantage over that. Nuclear power has one big disadvantage: it is required to pay the cost of disposal of its waste. The disposal of the wastes of the fossil fuel generators is part of the problem that we have to tackle in the near future.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I ask the Secretary of State a slightly hypothetical question: is it not fair to say that, if nuclear power were cheaper. the coal mining industry, and the mining industry generally, would be asking for a nuclear levy to help them in their difficulties?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not normally answer hypothetical questions, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We are dealing with the real world in which nuclear power is more expensive than fossil-generated power. It is possible to get the price down to a competitive rate, and I shall do everything that I can to deal with the problems.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: In seeking to achieve the lowest possible prices, especially for industrial consumers facing foreign competition, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no cross-subsidy between industrial and domestic consumers so that all consumers, large and small, can benefit from the welcome advantages of competition?
Mr. Wakeham: That is an important part of what we are seeking to achieve in the initial years, and further ahead. Cross-subsidisation would negate the purposes of the Act.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the formula RPI-X+Y, what are the determinants of X? Those who use mathematical formulae had better be very precise.
Mr. Wakeham: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at the licences; they are precisely all the costs incurred by the area boards other than the costs of electricity, which they have to buy from the generators.
Mr. Barry Field: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the non-fossil fuel obligation and the eventual right of large industrial producers of electricity—such as the Fawley oil refinery—to sell their excess capacity will make an outstanding contribution to the reduction of global warming and CO2?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister give an accurate statement of what is to happen to the 12,000MW flue-gas desulphurisation programme? The Government were committed to that programme and to completing it by 1993, but it seems that in their enthusiasm to privatise the electricity industry that commitment has vanished. Does not that show that when there is a choice between helping the rich, which is what privatisation is, and cleaning up the environment, the environment always comes a very poor second under this Government?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is cleverer than he sometimes pretends. He knows perfectly well that there is an EEC directive which requires us to reduce sulphur levels, and that the Government are committed to doing that. They are not, however, committed to doing it in a non-efficient way. We are looking at the best way of

39
achieving it. Achieve it we will and we shall be seen to achieve it, but we shall not do it in a way that is not the most sensible—even the hon. Gentleman would not advocate that.
Mr. Barron: Is not the non-efficient way, as suggested in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, an expansion of the generation of electricity by nuclear means? As for the misnamed fossil fuel levy announced today, should not the right hon. Gentleman admit that nuclear generation is more than 40 per cent. dearer than fossil fuel generation?
Speaking of the quaintly named interim period, has not the right hon. Gentleman told everybody today that there will be little or no competition in electricity generation for the foreseeable future? Why has he not protected consumers, both industrial and domestic? He must be well aware that British Coal has reduced its prices to the electricity generators in the past three years by £850 million. That could have led to a cut of 4 per cent. in prices over the past three years, but instead they have increased by 15 per cent. in order to fatten the industry for privatisation.
How can the Minister tell industrial and domestic consumers that they must accept an increase of at least the rate of inflation—8 per cent.—when he knows full well that the major expense that the generators will face in the next three years lies with British Coal, which has provided them with a contract that will save them £450 million in that period? Why has he not protected consumers, instead of letting his friends in the City and everyone else get ready to run away with the profits at the consumers' expense?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nuclear position, on which we have stated our policy. We shall review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. In the meantime, we shall complete Sizewell B and make the most effective and efficient use of existing nuclear capacity. That seems a sensible policy.
As for the protection of the consumer, and of prices, a great chunk of my statement provided an indication of price levels which I believe are a good protection for consumers for the next few years—very much more so than was possible under the last Labour Government.
I know that the hon. Gentleman takes the coal industry very seriously. So do I. That is why we brought the Coal Industry Bill before Parliament—it represents a substantial improvement in British Coal's finances—and why it is necessary to continue. I would be the first to pay tribute to the efforts of the coal industry to improve productivity in recent years, but the hon. Gentleman's proposition that the coal industry's improvements in efficiency could all be passed on to the consumer was not sensible, given that they were largely paid for by the taxpayer in recent years. The great problem facing the coal industry is that it should not rest on its laurels but should continue the improvement, so that at the end of the three-year contract I believe it possible that coal will still be the prime choice of fuel for the British generation industry. The hon. Gentleman should be worried lest competition from oil, gas and imported coal takes a great share of the market and produces more unemployment in the coal industry. None of us wants that.

T. W. Kempton Limited
4.45 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure on Friday of the long-established Leicester knitwear company T. W. Kempton Ltd, which has its headquarters and major plant at Burleys way in my constituency".
The matter is specific because it concerns Kempton, a fine, well-managed and long-established company and one of the largest privately owned knitwear companies in the United Kingdom.
It used to employ 1,200 people, 840 of whom worked in Leicester. The company was put into the hands of receivers on 6 November, and immediately jobs were lost. On Friday last there was an announcement of closure with the immediate loss of a further 300 jobs. That is important in itself, but especially because it reflects a national advancing catastrophe.
Leicester's main industry is knitwear, which last year still employed about 33,000 people in the county, some 22,000 of whom worked in the city of Leicester. Between June 1988 and November 1989 there were 7,500 job losses in the industry, of which 4,000 were in Leicestershire. The knitwear and hosiery industries are heading for catastrophe. The Government are standing with their hands folded, and there should be an urgent debate on the matter.
Among other companies affected by redundancies are renowned names such as Corah, Ingram, Chilprufe, Strettons, Towles, Lesley Dee and Leofabs. Last week it was announced that the Paisley Hyer group, which employs 1,000 people in Leicestershire, had gone into receivership in conditions similar to those in which Kempton did. In Nottingham, the Response group, employing 3,500 people, has gone into the hands of receivers.
The Government have taken no action while this great industry, symbolised by Kempton, struggles to survive. With employers and unions united in their pleas for help, the Government have done no more than produce a research programme which is due to take effect and to become useful in about five years. How many people will still be employed in the industry by then? How many firms like Kempton will collapse before the Government act?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the loss of 300 jobs resulting from the closure of T. W. Kempton Limited of Leicester".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have listened with care and concern to what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. As he knows, my only decision is to decide whether the application should have precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that, in this case, I do not feel that the

41
matter that the hon. and learned Member has raised meets the requirements of the Standing Order, and I cannot accept his application to the House.

Inshore Fishing Fleet
4.49 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threat to the nation's inshore fishing fleet arising from the recent bad weather conditions."
The appalling weather of recent weeks is causing grave damage to the livelihood of the nation's fishermen, in particular to the inshore fleet. The matter needs urgent debate in Parliament. The fishing press, fully supported by information from ports throughout the United Kingdom, is reporting extensive damage to boat-owning interests and the laying-off of a large number of people working in the industry. They call for immediate emergency aid to see them through a difficult period. They are calling for, and need, the kind of aid which has readily been made available to the farming community in the past.
The matter is important, as the position in the north-west of England is causing grave concern. In my constituency the problem is acute. The Maryport fleet of 25 boats, employing between 60 and 80 people, has been tied up for more than eight weeks.
A letter from local fisherman Harold Musgrave, explaining the plight of fishermen, says:
"The situation is now so desperate that we must appeal through you for emergency aid from the Government. If it is not forthcoming, the very important role that we play in providing jobs and support to the economy of our town and West Cumbria as a whole could go to the wall."
He goes on:
"Over the past 10 years, UK fishermen have been ignored. The Government's failure to introduce a comprehensive decommissioning scheme has made matters worse and the Government is now under attack within the EEC where money is available … whether at sea or not, fishermen must pay overheads, whatever they be, high interest bank loans, insurance or the hire of equipment."
He says that bills have to be paid:
42
"We are asking for your full support and that of all fair-minded MPs to gain for us emergency aid now. The position is desperate."
He emphasizes the word "now", and I know that the time of the House is precious, but could you spare us time for a debate please, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threat to the nation's inshore fishing fleet arising from the recent bad weather conditions."
I have listened with concern and I do not underestimate the seriousness of the situation that the hon. Member has outlined, but, as he knows, I have to base my decision on whether the application should have precedence over today's business or business tomorrow. I regret that I have to give him the same answer as I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I cannot submit his application to the House, but hope that the hon. Member will find other methods of bringing the matter before the House.

Inshore Fishing Fleet
  BILL PRESENTED
    PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir Richard Body, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Denis Healey, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Rev. Martin Smyth, Sir David Steel and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to amend the Public Records Act 1958 to permit the making of a permanent loan or a gift of a public record: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 March and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Ordered,
  That European Community Documents Nos. 9127/89, 10318/87 and 4406/88 on generalised system of preferences (Poland, Hungary and Korea) be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Legal Services
4.53 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to move,
That this House is shocked at the continued public feuding between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service which has developed into a crisis of confidence in two essential parts of the criminal justice system; and notes that the public legal services are in a serious state of collapse, in particular in respect of the legal aid system, the duty solicitors' scheme, the funding crisis of law centres and the failure of the Government to make progress on the issue of family courts.
This is the first time in many years that the House has discussed the crucial issue of legal services. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his presence in the House today, and I look forward to hearing his important contribution.
This debate is not just about lawyers talking about lawyers. At some time in his life, every citizen comes into contact with the legal services. I declare an interest as a former solicitor, who was employed at the north Leicester advice centre. I no longer practise.
In the time available I want to cover several crucial areas where I assert that the legal system is in crisis, and where I believe that early and urgent Government action is required. I shall begin with the Crown prosecution service.
As the House knows, the Select Committee on Home Affairs is conducting an inquiry into the operation of the Crown prosecution service. Members of the Committee, apart from myself, are at present on a site visit to Manchester. Tomorrow I shall join them in north Wales. Had they been here, I am certain that they would have wished to contribute to the debate.
On 23 January 1989, I asked the Attorney-General whether he agreed that the operation of the Crown prosecution service was approaching a crisis. He did not agree, and he stated in his reply to my request for an inquiry that he felt that it was an unnecessary disruption for an inquiry to take place.
Judging by the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Allan Green, and by representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation, there is little doubt in my mind that a serious crisis is besetting the Crown prosecution service. The public feuding between two essential elements of the criminal justice system has been astonishing. I felt that it was important to bring the matter before the House at an early stage, to seek the Attorney-General's views. The only people who could have an interest in the continuation of this quarrel are the criminals themselves, who have watched the proceedings, and watched the police and the DPP acting as sworn enemies rather than partners, as we have watched them.
I pay tribute to the staff of the Crown prosecution service for the work that they do under enormous pressure. I am a friend of the service, and I strongly believe in the need for an independent prosecution service. I pay tribute especially to the CPS in Leicestershire, which I have found to be efficient, fair and independent. All people agree that, from birth, the CPS has suffered from gross under-resourcing and understaffing. There are numerous complaints about the way in which it was established.
I ask the Attorney-General—I gave him notice of this and of several other questions—whether, with hindsight, he accepts the criticism that the service was established too hastily by the Government and without sufficient
44
planning. Does he agree with the statement by Mr. Green to the Select Committee, that "I think the service was brought in too hurriedly."?
The inability of the Crown prosecution service to keep and recruit lawyers is legendary. Since its creation it has been understaffed by 23 per cent., or by 430 posts. In a recent parliamentary reply, the Attorney-General told me that, in the three years since its creation, 334 lawyers have left—304 resigned, seven retired, four were dismissed, 16 were transferred and three died. A total of £619,580 has been spent, until 14 November last year, on an advertising campaign to recruit more staff.
Mr. David Martin: Can the hon. Gentleman give the exact figure of how many people work for the Crown prosecution service, so that we may know by what percentage it is understaffed?
Mr. Vaz: The service is about 23 per cent. understaffed at the moment, and the total number of posts is about 1,200, but I am sure that when the Attorney-General replies he will give us the correct, up-to-date figures. Those are the rough figures, as I see them.
Does the Attorney-General accept the proposals of the Public Accounts Committee, which would give the Director of Public Prosecutions more freedom to pay competitive rates for CPS lawyers?
Over the past three years more than £40 million has been spent out of the CPS budget on private agency lawyers. Does the Attorney-General know that an agency lawyer working full time for the CPS earns more than a CPS lawyer doing the same work? This afternoon when I spoke to the First Division Association I learnt that about £250 is the cost of an agency lawyer for a day's work in the CPS. That would give that person an income of £150,000 per year. I understand that that is more than the amount paid to any chief Crown prosecutor, except the Director of Public Prosecutions.
How can we justify the expenditure of such an enormous amount from the public sector on private solicitors? Does the Attorney-General accept that the Government are not getting value for money, given the criticisms that have been made about the calibre of the agency lawyers? What steps does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to improve that?
Those are important issues, but by far the most important current issue concerning the CPS arises from the evidence to the Select Committee. I found Mr. Allan Green, the Director of Public Prosecutions, a professional, honest and candid witness. In answer to a question from me he made an astonishing statement. He said:
"The introduction of the service was a bitter pill for some police officers to swallow. Some are not co-operating fully and might indeed be obstructing it in certain respects. These are areas in which we do need, if we are to do our job properly, very much greater effort, co-operation and willingness on the part of the police."
I pressed him about who the officers were and their ranks, and asked how senior the officers obstructing the work of the CPS were. Mr. Green replied:
"It is a very difficult question to answer. I would say that at all ranks in the police force, from top to bottom, there will be certain people who are very much less willing to co-operate than others."
His words "from top to bottom" included reference to chief constables and junior officers.
Does the Attorney-General stand by the statement of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Does he agree that

45
there are officers at all ranks who are refusing to co-operate, hindering, or wilfully obstructing the workings of the CPS? How many officers are involved in that action? When did the Law Officers first become aware of that? I know from a conversation that I had with the Solicitor-General on Report of the Children Bill that he was aware of it in October last year. What steps has the Attorney-General taken to refer the matter to his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary? What disciplinary action, if any, has been taken against officers who have been found to be involved in that obstruction?
I now refer to the evidence of the police. The Police Federation maintains that there is a crisis of confidence in the CPS. Its evidence stabs the CPS not only in the back but in the front. The federation has become extraordinarily bitter. It asserts that the reputation of the criminal justice system has suffered as a result of the activities of the CPS. The federation is against almost everything that the CPS has done in the past few years. It challenges the calibre of agency staff, is critical of the plea bargaining system that the CPS has adopted, and attacks CPS lawyers for failing to make applications for compensation after cases. The federation also attacks the CPS for failing to keep witnesses informed and says that the actions of the CPS have damaged the morale of police officers. It challenges the way in which the CPS has taken prosecutions and decisions about the discontinuance of prosecutions.
Does the Attorney-General accept any of the police criticisms that are set out in written evidence? Does he agree with the police that the CPS is in crisis? Has he received any representations from the Home Secretary about the matter? Does he accept the view put forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police should be allowed their own solicitors in order to second-guess the decisions of the CPS? Crucially, does he accept the police statement in paragraph 1 of their evidence, that the CPS has damaged the reputation of the criminal justice system? Does he agree with the Director of Public Prosecutions or with the Police Federation?
In respect of the evidence given last week by Mr. David Owen, the chief constable of north Wales, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman support the view that the evidence given on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers represents Mr. Owen's own views and that he is pursuing a vendetta against the CPS, or does he accept that Mr. Owen's evidence represents the collective views of the association?
Mr. Alex Carlile: On occasions I have had the advantage of being instructed by the north Wales CPS, under the leadership of its chief Crown prosecutor, Mr. Clarke, and I found that its Crown court preparation is of the highest possible standard.
Mr. Vaz: I certainly accept that. As I said, I shall join the other members of the Select Committee in north Wales tomorrow. I raised the issue of Mr. Owen because it has been raised with me in the past and was raised in the Committee. It is extremely important for the House to know whether the Attorney-General accepts Mr. Owen's views.
I urge the Attorney-General to act to stop this disgraceful public row, which must be having a profound effect on the public perception of two of three partners in
46
the criminal justice system. I ask him to tell the House the steps that he will take, either on his own or with the Home Secretary, to end the feud.
The public evidence submitted by 23 organisations is a damning indictment of the Crown prosecution service. Everyone who gave evidence, including representatives of the Home Office, was critical to some degree. One of those giving evidence said that the CPS was in a shambles. Perhaps the problem lies in the lack of co-operation between the police and the Crown prosecution service. Those are serious matters that have attracted a great deal of public comment, and I hope that the Attorney-General will give us the assurances that I seek.
There is a view that, because of the enormous damage to its reputation, the Crown prosecution service should be scrapped, refurbished and re-established with a new name, and that it should be given the support that it has never received. I should like to know whether the Attorney-General shares that view.
Mr. Tim Devlin: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman because I am anxious to learn whether he is criticising the police or the CPS. His solution to the problem is to change the name and re-establish the service. Does he accept the concept of an independent prosecuting authority—which is what the CPS is? If he accepts that, why will changing the name make the army fight any better?
Mr. Vaz: As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman missed the beginning of my speech. I am sure that he was delayed elsewhere on parliamentary business. He will therefore not have heard me say that I am a great supporter of an independent prosecution service. I offered the example of the American system and said that we need to get away from the damaging criticism of the CPS. A change of name and a new approach may do much to reassure the public and the elements of the criminal justice system that we wish to begin again.
There is a crisis in the provision of legal aid. I welcome the announcement that the Lord Chancellor made in November of a review of the legal aid system. However, I question why it will take so long for that review to reach a conclusion.
In the past 10 years, 15 million people have lost the right to qualify for legal aid. Many proposals in many reports published over the past decade would, if implemented, directly benefit citizens. They include the same flexible upper limit for civil legal aid as for criminal legal aid so that people of all means will qualify, subject to an appropriate contribution; abolishing the means test in personal injuries cases; and bringing the capital rules for green form advice into line with those for civil legal aid. A single person who has savings of more than £890 is excluded from the scheme, however low his income. Legal aid should be extended to tribunals, particularly the social security commissioners. The commissioners are referred to in the Select Committee's report as a decision-making body, from which, as the Attorney-General knows, the next step is the Court of Appeal.
The Department of Social Security is almost always legally represented in such cases. Only 3,000 cases were decided in 1987—the last year for which figures are available. In written parliamentary answers, the Attorney-General conceded that only about 200 cases led to hearings, which on average take two hours. At current

47
rates, the cost of advocacy would be no more than £20,000. Parliament is legislating for rights that cannot be enforced because citizens cannot pay.
The decline in legal aid and assistance is real and substantial; 8 per cent. fewer people used the green form scheme in 1988–89 than in 1987–88. That is the largest, and only the second ever, drop in the use of the scheme, from 1,077,054 people to 994,066.
There was a 3 per cent. drop in civil legal aid certificates over the same period, whereas previously there had been a steady rise. Fewer and fewer citizens qualify. This year, 56 per cent. of the population are eligible, whereas the figure for 1979 was 79 per cent. Justice is being cash limited; I call it justice capping. Never before has there been such a need for people to be given proper legal advice and assistance. Does the Attorney-General accept that fewer people qualify, and does he think that that is a healthy development?
The duty solicitor scheme is in danger of collapse. Research from Birmingham university, which was published at the end of last year, shows that the safeguards that were built into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 have not worked. Only 25 per cent. of suspects in police stations seek advice, and fewer receive it. Research shows—and I am sure that the Attorney-General is familiar with it—that 22 ploys are used by the police to discourage requests for advice.
Citizens can obtain advice only if solicitors are willing and able to administer the scheme. Fewer and fewer solicitors are taking part in the service, which places greater strain on those who participate in it. The scheme does not provide adequate compensation for being on duty overnight or at weekends. I should be the last person to argue for a pay rise for solicitors—I have yet to meet a starving solicitor—but the quality of advice that is given must in some way reflect the number of solicitors who are taking part. What is the Attorney-General's solution to the problems of the duty solicitor scheme?
I am deeply concerned about how the contracting-out of legal services will be operated. Franchising may be good enough for McDonald's, but it is not appropriate for justice to be treated as a junk food chain. Will the Attorney-General tell the House what progress and decisions have been made on franchising?
Several hon. Members are present who support the concept of family courts. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was a member of the Commitee that considered the Children Bill. He and I tabled a new clause that would have realised a long-standing ambition—the creation of a family court. On Report, the Solicitor-General took the House by surprise by announcing the establishment or existence of what he called "a rolling programme" of the review of family law and administration. On Second Reading of that Bill in another place, the Lord Chancellor tried to placate the supporters of the family courts campaign by saying that the Children Bill allowed for the establishment of a family court in all but name.
If that is so, I cannot understand why the Courts and Legal Services Bill, which is currently being considered in another place, does not go the distance by allowing for the creation of a family court. What worries me is that there does not seem to be a time limit on the rolling programme
48
that was referred to by the Solicitor-General. In addition, its terms of reference have never been properly defined. Government agencies and Departments meet regularly, but Parliament is not kept informed of developments. We want a proper family court—not a series of piecemeal changes, but one comprehensive change that will allow the procedure to be adopted. We were told many times in Committee on the Children Bill that the substantive law has been codified, but it is now time for the court structure to follow. Without a court structure, substantive law will never be properly achieved.
Mr. Devlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but, as he knows, I have a great interest in this matter. Many parliamentary questions were tabled a week ago last Thursday, in answer to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General revealed that a programme of reforms was being worked on by an inter-departmental committee. Unfortunately, it does not appear to have met since last November, and many people will be concerned that the rolling programme does not appear to be rolling very fast. What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that?
Mr. Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree with everything that he said. He was in the Chamber on the dramatic day when the right hon. Member fo Blaby (Mr. Lawson) resigned, thus turning the Children Bill, which was being debated, into a controversial Bill when previously it had always progressed by consensus. We raised that matter with the Solicitor-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman uses marvellous adjectives to describe the family court system, and he said that he was sorry that he could not provide the "all-singing and all-dancing" family court that we required. He went on to coin another phrase, the "rolling programme". As the hon. Member for Stockton, South correctly said, despite a number of parliamentary questions having been tabled in a completely unorchestrated way, the response by the Attorney-General was disappointing.
Mr. Devlin: I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is probably thinking that the hon. Gentleman has never specified what he means by a family court. When I moved the new clause in Committee, I was fairly specific about what I particularly wanted. I knew that there was not a consensus and that different people supported different ideas. Will the hon. Gentleman give us a better idea of how he sees the family court? My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would be interested to hear it and would then be in a better position to respond.
Mr. Vaz: I shall not be tempted down that path and shall not turn the debate into a major debate on family courts. The Attorney-General is well aware of what we mean when we describe the need for a family court. I am sure that he has read at length the extracts from Hansard, including the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies, he will probably say what all Law Officers have said from the Dispatch Box when this matter has been raised with them—"No". We shall be interested to hear whether that "No" has been tempered in any way, in the ferocity of its delivery.

49
As I said, the county court system is in need of major surgery. Like so many other parts of the judicial system, it is under-resourced and understaffed. There have been numerous complaints in cases where the inaction of the courts has resulted in a denial of justice. The proposals in the Courts and Legal Services Bill and the Children Act will result in more work being given to the county courts. When those proposals are enacted—the Children Act is not yet in force—it will bring the county court system to a grinding halt, unless there is a huge increase in resources and efficiency.
Those who use the county court system pay for the service. It operated at a notional profit of £6 million in 1988–89. yet the service in many parts of the country is appalling. The issuing of summonses has been delayed and there is a backlog in dealing with correspondence. According to the Law Society, Hastings county court is said to have a one-month backlog in dealing with its post. As at 1 November 1989, Birmingham county court had 8,000 unopened items of mail—the scenario that makes even Lunar house in Croydon look efficient.
I support the establishment of an ombudsman to investigate the complaints of maladministration or an extension of the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I strongly believe that the public should be compensated when they suffer financial loss because of the state of the county courts. What words of comfort has the Attorney-General to offer them?
In passing, I should like to mention the state of the magistrates courts and the delays and injustices suffered there. Will the Attorney-General bring to the attention of the Home Secretary my worry and that of many others about the delays? In particular, I strongly support the idea of a fixed appointment system in the magistrates and juvenile courts as the best way of organising court business. That will help the system save a great deal of money. It will stop the legal aid fund paying out a great deal of money to solicitors for waiting around in the courts for cases to be called. It will provide a better deal for court users. The key must surely be proper liaison. I hope to see a structure of court user committees established in all local courts that will allow all those who participate in the legal service to be properly represented and to put their views.
I speak as one who has worked in a law centre. There is no better way of providing public legal services in terms of legal advice and assistance to ordinary people than that system. Law centres, citizens advice bureaux, consumer advice centres, rights centres and the like have been established in many cities, but they are always beset by funding crises. Does the Attorney-General agree that they are an essential part of public legal services? If so, when will the Government come up with more funding for them? The case for a centrally funded network of law centres is unanswerable. Why should people be denied access to legal information and advice just because they live in a certain part of the country and their local authority, which is more than likely to be Labour controlled, does not fund a centre?
I commend my local authority, Leicester city council, for the way in which it spends its money so wisely in providing three excellent law centres—the Leicester rights law centre, the self-help neighbourhood project and the Belgrave and Highfields law centre—as well as assisting in the funding of consumer advice centres and citizens advice bureaux. Justice would be denied to thousands of my
50
constituents if anything happened to those important local organisations. Let us have a public commitment from the Attorney-General and let his assurance be simple—that more cash will be forthcoming for those important elements in our legal services.
There are so many other matters that I should like to bring to the attention of the House that, if I were to carry on speaking, I would take up the entire time allocated for private Members' motions. I am sure that other hon. Members wish to contribute, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser)—who has a tremendous record on campaigning on these issues—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). Unfortunately, time does not permit me to continue much longer. Justice can be made available to all our citizens equally only if the system works. In many respects—the Crown prosecution service, the legal aid system, the duty solicitor scheme, law centres, county courts and magistrates courts—it is not working efficiently or effectively. Parliament must ensure that, in the interests of justice, those problems are resoled with a minimum of delay. If they are not resolved, millions of our citizens will suffer from injustice.
5.28 pm
M. David Martin: I have listened with interest to the rarefied contribution, if I may call it that, by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on various matters about which he plainly has thought deeply and has considerable experience. No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will answer many of the hon. Gentleman's questions.
I ceased practising at the Bar in 1976, before the Crown prosecution service came into being, but that leads me to declare an interest. Although I gain no money from practice at the Bar or from any other form of legal practice, I have had experience of such practice. I have held certain views on the country's legal services for many years. and the hon. Gentleman's motion gives me an ideal opportunity to express them. In doing so, I shall give rather wider consideration than he did to the legal aid services, the duty solicitors scheme, the county courts and the advice centres.
Before I embark on more general themes, however, let me take up what the the hon. Gentleman said about the county courts. For far too many years the legal framework has been diversifying into an excessive number of tribunals and other courts that are not part of the central system—the structure containing the High Court, the county courts, the Supreme Court. So much money and so many staff have had to be found that, sooner rather than later, we shall need another adjudicature Act. That will mean taking a close look at the whole structure of our court system to establish whether matters are now being dealt with in the right courts.
Diversification has gone mad since the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958. It was a mistake to diversify too much, rather than concentrating on improving the system as it existed for many years. That system could have incorporated many of the cases now being heard before tribunals that are not part of the main structure—a remedy to which we must address ourselves in future years.
Parliament contains many legal experts, although, surprisingly, not many are present today.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Special pleading.
Mr. Martin: It is not unusual for those who speak in debates of this kind to perform such a function.
The number of lawyers in both Houses of Parliament has always been considered a mixed blessing at best, and a curse at worst. I once read in a history of Parliament that in 1404 a parliament indoctum had been held in Coventry, from which all lawyers were excluded. That is obviously still a popular notion in some quarters, but the habit did not catch on any more than the cry of, "Let us hang all the lawyers" that was heard during the Peasants' Revolt 23 years earlier. Nevertheless, variations on that cry have been heard on many occasions, particularly from unsuccessful litigants or political revolutionaries, exasperated or frustrated by the pace of constitutional change and filled with a fervent desire to advance their own notions of liberty in the teeth of established law, custom or practice and the innate conservatism—with a small "c"—of any civilisation founded on the rule of law.
Mention of innate conservatism leads me to one of my themes, namely, what the present excellent Lord Chancellor is up against in promoting—by means of the Courts and Legal Services Bill—the reforms that are so crucial to the improvement of our legal services for the benefit of the consumer, or customer, who is foolish enough ever to attempt to resolve anything through a lawyer. From the White Paper onwards, my right hon. and noble Friend has been up against special interests that have been marshalled on a huge scale, particularly the existing power structure of the legal profession and the Bench. The judges' case-the Bar's case against some of his more imaginative reforms must be examined on the basis of narrow and special self-interest, rather than that of the public interest that they profess to have so close to their hearts.
The public interest is often paraded as women and children are herded into the van of an army that fears attack and hopes by such means to inhibit and deflect the fire of its opponents. Fortunately, my right hon. and noble Friend has been assisted in his task from the outset by the hysterical virulence of the Bench and Bar opposition not only to proposals that might have been considered to need modification, but to any proposals that appear to pose the slightest threat to the status quo and that past investigations under a different leadership in the House of Lords had not recommended.
Top judges, lesser judges, top barristers and lesser barristers alike, have fallen over themselves in the extravagance of their condemnation. It has been said—or, on many occasions, blustered in outrage—that my right hon. and noble Friend is attacking the independence of the Bar; that through such action he is attacking the independence of the judiciary; and that that in turn mounts an assault on the universal liberties that have been guarded so jealously for centuries by an independent judiciary. Those claims are bunkum, and should be examined far more closely before distinguished people parade them.
The Lord Chancellor is proposing to widen the rights of audience, which has been done many times before, not least in Devon and Cornwall. I have practised on the western circuit, and I know from personal experience what happened in those counties; I have not practised in Wales, but the rights of audience have been widened there, as well as in county and magistrates courts. That has not led to
52
any loss of independence for the Bar, or to so much as a hint of its destruction, even where there is joint audience with solicitors.
The extensions that have already been granted have shown that it must not be assumed that those who possess a right will use it. Like every other hon. Member, I have the right to apply to the Crown to be appointed steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead—and I understand that I would be appointed if I applied. However, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who looks extremely concerned at the possiblity of my making such an application, that I leave it to others to apply from time to time.
The same applies to many solicitors, who have rights of audience in the places that I have mentioned but choose not to take them up, preferring to get a barrister in. Every citizen has the right to appear to plead his own cause in every court of law, but few choose to do so. That is another indication that the conferral of a right does not guarantee that that right will be exercised.
With my experience of the Bar and my knowledge of its history, I have no doubt that it will prove strong enough—as it has for centuries—to survive change, not only the changes in rights of audience for general civil or criminal matters but those involving specialist knowledge of commercial, taxation or chancery matters. There will always be a need for good, independent contractors. The fact that some building firms have become very large and have in-house electricians and plumbers does not mean that independent contractors cannot continue to succeed. I see no difference, in principle, between their position and that of the independent barrister advising clients on intricate matters. Surely they have nothing to fear; nor do many express fears. They will survive the moderate reforms that are being proposed.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I do not quarrel with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, will he explain how someone living in Devon who has a complicated chancery matter requiring attention and advocacy in the High Court will secure the services of an independent advocate skilled in that area of the law unless someone can advise him who those skilled advocates are? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger of people who are not competent to do particular types of work taking on such work?
Mr. Martin: That is a valid point, but the present position is no different. If a member of the public wants advice on a complicated matter, he can visit his local solicitor who may decide that he can deal with it himself and not recommend that counsel should be employed to give better advice. That sort of thing could still happen under the new arrangements. Adequate information must be provided and there should be wide advertising of barristers who have particular skills so that people in Devon can read The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror, the Sun or whatever and see advertisements for the services of competent counsel, based in London if necessary or anywhere else, to whom they can have direct access. That would improve the present position in which solicitors have the discretion as to whether to bring in counsel.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A few moments ago my hon. Friend said that a solicitor might deem that he had the knowledge. He may deem that, but,

53
as my grandmother used to say, his saying so does not make it so. He may be so conceited to believe that he is competent when he is not.
Mr. Martin: That is right and my hon. Friend has made that point graphically. Some people may believe that they know something, but they do not and often another person should be brought in to advise on the matter. Many complaints have arisen about that. Some solicitors always go to counsel whether or not they believe themselves competent to deal with the case and problems may arise when the client thinks that he has to pay two people when he could have paid only one. I do not believe that those matters will change significantly under the new system. They will certainly not change for the worse for the customer, but some proposals may improve the position.
I have no doubt that the Bar will adjust to the new arrangements. When the fees increase and standards of living are not threatened but improved, no one will admit to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General or my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General—who will all probably have retired by then—that they were right and that the reforms did not mean the destruction of the Bar. People will not admit that the Bar is actually thriving when they did not think that it would. The Bar will thrive and those who said that that would happen will get no credit for saying so.
An equally substantial charge about the reforms made against my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor was repeated last week at Exeter university by Lord Ackner. The charge is that my right hon. and noble Friend is making it easier to extend executive control and to deprofessionalise the legal profession. The Lord Chancellor is said to be arrogating to himself, through an advisory committee, unacceptable powers not only of widening the categories of those who will be entitled to plead, but of setting out clear codes or standards of education, training and professional conduct.
Constitutionalists, whether they be self-appointed, elected or otherwise, throw up their hands in horror that so powerful a Minister should presume to exercise such awesome power in such a way, assisted and indeed "dominated"—to use Lord Ackner's words last week at Exeter—by people who
"do not have expertise in the very profession which it is their function to oversee."
In other words, "Intelligent laymen—keep out. You have nothing to offer so far as those very important matters are concerned with regard to standards of education, training and professional conduct of lawyers."
If only those who had expertise were able to make judgments in those matters, very few Ministers would ever be appointed. In some cases, Ministers are appointed to oversee engineering, but they are not engineers. Lay people on both sides of the House must take highly intricate decisions when they are not necessarily qualified to do so. However, in our humility we do not say that we cannot take those decisions; we take them. That is the same with regard to the lay benches. Lay magistrates have no legal training, but they give of their time and use their experience as people of the world. They offer their experience in that highly intricate——
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: They are advised by a competent clerk.
Mr. Martin: Indeed, that is only part of the function of lay magistrates. As lay people, they have an important function in helping in the process of the law. They must take decisions about what happens in the courts while the clerk simply advises. The lay magistrate plays a very important role and I do not see why lay people should not be competent and so be part of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee, which is to be chaired by a judge. Their common sense could be of great benefit to the profession.
For generations, the office of Lord Chancellor has involved the most extraordinary totalitarian powers. Constitutionalists have commented on those powers on many occasions. The theory of the job is quite horrifying when we consider what powers are concentrated in the Lord Chancellorship.
The Lord Chancellor is the most senior Cabinet Minister. He has precedence even over the Prime Minister. With such Executive power in charge of the system of access to justice in this country, the Lord Chancellor appoints—and people advise him about the appointment of—virtually irremovable judges. The Lord Chancellor decides who will practise as silks, Queen's counsel or senior barristers and he also appoints recorders. He receives advice, although not necessarily only expert advice.
The reason why the Lord Chancellor's powers do not in practice become intolerable or lead to the goosestep in this country is that they have been exercised in the true British fashion of good sense and restraint in the context of the firmly rooted traditions of a free country governed through an open parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Hear, hear.
Mr. Martin: I note the support that I hear from my hon, Friend. Parliamentary democracy is the main bastion of people's freedoms. In particular, the House of Commons has proved historically the best guardian of liberty. It is a fanciful notion that judges carry out that role in any but the most marginal of ways or that they have ever done so or are ever likely to do so.
The much-vaunted role of judges in administrative law, in protecting the liberties of the subject, is grossly exaggerated. Parliament holds Ministers to account and it makes and changes the laws. The fear of having to face Parliament, and in particular this House, and so preserve a majority in this place, is the real check on ministerial powers and actions; it is not the apparent check claimed by judges. The judges have a role to play, but that should not be exaggerated.
The basis for the complaints made by judges lies in the power structure and influence that they possess at the moment. That applies in the courts, with rights of audience, and to the conduct of barristers and the Bar generally. It also relates to the Bar's promotion prospects. Those factors have an influence on the way in which people are promoted and the advice given to the Lord Chancellor about advocates. Wider influence in the way in which that advocacy is conducted will do nothing but good for the standards of independent advocacy in court.
There are bound to be amendments to the Courts and Legal Services Bill, and they will meet many of the criticisms that have been made. The biggest outrage is being done to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor by people not considering the proposals in a

55
calm and reasonable manner. The atmosphere has changed because of the damage caused by those who went off at the deep end at the outset. Misrepresenting the proposals as an attack on the constitution and representing judges and barristers as the guardians of liberty, any erosion of whose traditional rights, powers and privilege will lead to the loss of our treasured freedoms, is just not on. In future years, when legal services are operated in the light of the new Act, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
5.49 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on his success in the ballot. Legal services, including legal aid and advice, are to citizens' rights what the National Health Service is to their health, yet, in terms of parliamentary time, legal services are the Cinderella of parliamentary debate. The Government have not helped. Despite the importance of the subject, the Government gave Opposition Members no time to discuss the wide-ranging civil justice review. The Government have provided no time to discuss the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper, White Paper, or the reform of the profession. The Government have consulted virtually everybody except hon. Members. To emulate the example of High Court judges, we might have had a little more time if we had taken some industrial action. The House owes my hon. Friend a debt of gratitude for his luck and for his judgment.
The House creates many rights and duties and provides guarantees of liberty and fair play. At one end of the scale it provides for the right of silence—although that is under threat at the moment—and it provides consumer guarantees at the other end of the scale. It provides thousands of rights. However, rights and duties are meaningless unless they are understood and operate in practice with equal force, irrespective of the income, wealth, power or influence of those in whom they are confirmed. The scale of legal services and how they affect people's daily lives is much broader than that which is measured by the time that we have to discuss such matters in the House.
For instance, in the last complete year for which figures are available, more than 600,000 people received legal aid orders for the defence of criminal proceedings—incidentally, a rise of about 250,000 in 10 years, which goes to show how ineffective the Government have been in checking crime. Every year, about 2 million people are prosecuted for offences ranging from the most serious to the most trivial, but all those people have an interest in the efficiency and integrity with which our courts are conducted. Each year, hundreds of thousands of people will be the victims of crime. Their interest are often unvoiced or unheard, but they have an interest in the efficiency of our legal service and, in particular, the prosecution service.
It is said that it is better that 10 guilty men should go free than that one innocent man should be convicted, but it is much better that all guilty men are convicted and all innocent men should go free and that the guilty do not go free simply because of the incompetence or inefficiency of the system. Last year, about 250,000 people received legal aid for civil proceedings. Of course, many more will seek assistance and advice. Millions of people will seek advice
56
in one form or another—for example, advice on housing, social security, immigration and police matters—and millions of people are served by the green form.
Only last week, the Financial Times mentioned the need for advice. We were told that
"At least 200,000 households—1 per cent. of the national total—are in serious financial trouble because of the increase in the use of credit, according to a working party set up…at the request of Sir Gordon Borrie".
The report went on to recommend an extension of advice services.
Hon. Members are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East for raising several issues and giving hon. Members a chance to raise matters concerning legal services.
I did not wish to say anything about the duty solicitor scheme, but I hope that the Attorney-General will discuss with the Home Secretary some improvement in the way in which defendants are advised about the duty solicitor scheme at police stations. There have been reports of the 22 ploys that the police use to rob people of their rights to legal representation. There is great professionalism among custody officers. There has been a massive change since the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. All practising lawyers and academics come across cases in which people have asked for legal representation at a police station but have not received it or have not had their rights properly explained. One suggestion is that the person in custody should be required to make a positive statement that he does not require help from his own solicitor or from the duty solicitor, rather than ticking a box, which is what occurs at the moment.
I do not intend to politicise every issue. There are some issues upon which the Opposition will probably support the Lord Chancellor more strongly than we support the Attorney-General. We shall not turn it into a partisan debate. However, I shall say something about the competence, efficiency, effectiveness and coverage of some of our legal services, such as the prosecution service and legal aid, and then refer to some ways in which the Labour party sees the development of legal services, advice and representation at their broadest. I shall refer first to competence, coverage, efficiency and effectiveness and some of the matters for which the Attorney-General is responsible.
We welcome the Lord Chancellor's extension of legal aid for the elderly and for children, the extension of legal aid to some personal injury cases, and the disaggregation of some assets and income. We welcome the Government's long overdue admission—they have told us previously that the figures could not be collected—that only 56 per cent. of the population were eligible for legal aid before the recent changes were made. Although we welcome those changes, they do not go nearly far enough. The loss of legal aid eligibility is a massive blemish on any Government's duty to make civil and legal rights a reality.
In 10 years, the number of people eligible for legal aid has fallen by about 14 million individuals and 5·5 million households. It is almost as though we had said to 14 million people, "You no longer have access to a National Health Service hospital." That is a correct analogy. In the past two years alone, 1 million households and 2·5 million people have ceased to be eligible for legal aid. The reason is that the increases in the limits for legal aid—the allowances that enable people to qualify for legal aid and assistance—have increased far more slowly than either the

57
increase in the retail prices index or the increase in earnings. Taking 1979 as the base year, and giving each of the figures an index of 100 for 1979, we find that the increases in the allowances for a single person to qualify for legal aid have gone up by only 48 per cent., and the increases in allowances for a couple with two children to qualify for legal aid have gone up by 53 per cent. In contrast, since 1979 the retail prices index has gone up by 93 per cent., and average earnings have gone up by 134 per cent.
That is the plain reason why, during the past decade, the effect of successive reviews of legal aid eligibility limits has been to take more and more people out of eligibility. That is effectively to destroy the civil rights of millions of people who might want to claim damages for personal injury, apply for custody of children, or conduct property disputes. We simply cannot divorce civil rights for legal aid from effective enforcement and the provision of legal aid for those who are in need of advice and assistance.
Research by the London School of Economics and the department of statistical mathematical sciences has shown that the figures that were disputed by Cyril Glasser, which we quoted extensively during the passage of the Legal Aid Bill, were correct. We asked the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor to cease to deny the effects of the legal aid income limit and capital limit policies and, in addition to the cases that were recently dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, to restore eligibility to 1979 limits.
It is interesting that, although the number of civil legal aid certificates has remained relatively static over the past 10 years, the number of criminal legal aid orders has just about doubled, increasing from about 300,000 in 1979 to 600,000 in 1989. Of course, people who are accused of criminal offences must have representation and a fair trial. Indeed, they cannot have a fair trial without representation. However, those who have not even been accused of a criminal offence have equal rights to representation. What is even worse about the way in which we have whittled away eligibility for legal aid is that civil legal aid costs very little and, because there is a sieve, many of the cases are successful. Many cases involve the recovery of damages and of costs. Therefore, the burden of providing civil legal aid and of extending the limits is minor, compared with the expense of criminal legal aid work. In the light of the most recent research, I ask the Attorney-General seriously to consider restoring eligibility to the 1979 level of about 80 per cent. of the population.
Apart from eligibility, there are further problems with legal aid relating to the quality and choice of representation and to the efficiency and the quality of the legal system. I know that it is intended that the Legal Aid Board and the recent changes should improve efficiency, but it is an outrage that in 1988—the last year for which complete figures are available—in south London, part of which area I represent, the average waiting time for a legal aid application to be approved was eight months. Even now, it is not unusual for the granting of a legal aid certificate to take six months. That is not good enough.
The time taken to administer the legal aid system once a case is successful is also indefensible. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have often come across cases in which somebody has been successful in a claim—it might have been settled or it might have been the result of going to court—and damages have been awarded, but because of the operation of the statutory charge and sometimes because of the inefficiency of legal aid committees it is
58
months, and sometimes almost a year, between the time that the damages were received and the time that they reach the assisted person. That cannot be right.
There is another thing wrong with the system—or where there is a great danger of something being quite wrong with the system. I refer to the choice and the quality of representation. There is a great danger that legally aided people will soon be offered a lower quality of representation simply because the rates of pay for legal aid lawyers are getting further and further behind the comparative rates of payment for those in privately funded work. Research has already shown that lawyers are tending to leave legal aid work in their 30s. As soon as lawyers become experienced, they are moving from legal aid work to more remunerative work. Other research has shown that about 40 per cent. of solicitors had given up, or were seriously considering giving up, their criminal legal aid work.
The gulf between the payment of legal aid work for lawyers and the payment of non-legal aid work is growing wider. Last year the pay settlement for those doing legal aid work was about 6 per cent. This year, rumour has it that the Goverment—no doubt for reasons connected with the ambulance workers and other considerations—have suggested a 6·5 per cent. increase in remumeration for legal aid work, which is much the same as the amount offered to other public employees. As a consequence fewer and fewer well-qualified solicitors or counsel will want to—or be able to afford to—do legal aid work. It is not a question of people being greedy because there comes a point in the running of a legal aid practice at which it is no longer possible to continue with legal aid work because it will be loss-making.
As I have said, it is not a question of the greed of those who are operating on behalf of legally assisted persons; it is the sheer necessity of life. If the payment for the work that is done is not sufficient to reward the service or to pay the rent, rates and all the other costs that are involved in running a legal aid practice, there is a great danger that the rates of reward will turn legal aid work into a second-class business and then it is only a matter of time before the quality of representation also becomes second class.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East referred to law centres. We ask the Government for a clear statement that funds will be made available to save the law centres that are currently supported or that were supported by the Lord Chancellor's Department and where the responsibility has been transferred to the Legal Aid Board. Law centres do an immense amount of good work and we in the Labour party should like to see them supported nationally, by a partnership with local authorities. The very least that the Goverment should do is to meet the case of the law centres and to continue the funding of those that are now supported from central funds. If they do not, at least two or three centres are bound to close because the necessary funds cannot be found elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East rightly devoted much of his speech to dealing with the Crown prosecution service. The Opposition are not satisfied with the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown prosecution service. I do not say that with any joy or pleasure because we have always supported the concept of the CPS and of an independence of judgment about whether a prosecution should be brought. We do not share the sour grapes that have been expressed in some quarters about the CPS. I

59
know that there is a degree of jealousy and sourness about the very fact that the CPS was set up. Although we have always welcomed and supported the service, that will not prevent us from lodging criticisms if we believe them to be justified. We do not want the CPS to have a monopoly of prosecutions. It is extremely important that lawyers, and especially those who are likely to become judges, have experience of both prosecution and defence. Once they have learned to walk, there is a real case for them having the chance to do a bit of running—as members of the CPS in the Crown courts. However, perhaps we can discuss that at greater length when the Courts and Legal Services Bill comes before this House. Having said that about our support of the CPS, we are entitled to an explanation of why millions of pounds have been thrown away on cases that have not even been put before a jury for decision. I can think of about four or five cases that have failed before the courts. If we were to take the cost of those four or five abortive cases and transferred that money to the Legal Aid Board, it would be enough to keep the law centres going for another year or so.
The public want convictions of the guilty and the effective prosecution of criminals because that is one of the best forms of deterrence. I am sure that other hon. Members share my experience of being contacted by victims or the families of victims because they are aghast and infuriated by the way in which some cases are conducted. I shall give four examples from my personal experience and wish to put on the record the fact that the Attorney-General has treated one of these cases most sympathetically. People have come to me about examples in which there appears to be a strong case of causing death by dangerous driving and without any consultation the charge has been reduced to one of careless driving, to the immense fury of those who have lost a loved one. That is just one example, and, although that is the case that I have raised with the Attorney-General, other such cases have been raised with me.
A second example is that people have often come to me because they are infuriated that bail has been granted to a defendant who has been guilty of the most violent assault and who has threatened future assaults against the victim, and when there has been no degree of discussion between the prosecution and the victim about the bail conditions that should be suggested to the court.
I have looked at the evidence in a murder case, which was provided to me by the family involved, in which I believe that the family had every reason to question the way in which the evidence was collected, preserved and presented. I have spoken to junior members of the Crown prosecution service, who have complained about the burden of their work and about having, at a junior level, to conduct murder cases.
Turning now to the Kevin Taylor case, I do not question the innocence of those who were acquitted because a Crown case was drawn. I do not question for one moment the innocence of Mr. Kevin Taylor, who was acquitted by the court. It does not seem proper that a case should proceed to trial and be dropped when, according to newspaper reports, about £1 million had been spent on its preparation. If a case is to be dropped, surely it should be dropped well before it comes to trial.
60
In another recent case, that of the Crown v. Coren and Greenwood, allegations were made that information had been obtained from the Office of Fair Trading, including information about takeovers. That case involved not simply the guilt or innocence of those standing in the dock but the integrity of public administration and of a public institution. We are told in the newspapers that in that case about £750,000 had been spent and the case was dropped almost at the beginning of the trial.
It is sad to see headlines such as the one in The Sunday Times which said:
"Prosecution service failing miserably."
The Attorney-General must learn the lessons of recent well-publicised cases and others and of the expensive farce of trials which are abandoned at a relatively late stage because the prosecution was inadequate.
I am told by the National Audit Office that about two thirds of all cases which fail are dropped on the first court hearing. I hope that the Attorney-General will recognise that we support the CPS. We want to see it well rewarded. We want a proper career structure for those who join it and proper rates of remuneration. We support the service, but the Attorney-General must respond to criticisms of the standard and performance of the CPS and the amount of resources put behind it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East spent some time on discussing the efficiency of county courts. I remind the Attorney-General of the grave misgivings of those who practise in the county courts about the efficiency of the system. We should expect first-class efficiency from our judical system as a matter of course, especially if jurisdiction is to be transferred to county courts from the High Court, as recommended in the Courts and Legal Services Bill. If that is to be the case, we must be assured that the game will be conducted on a pitch which is fit to play on.
I talked recently in private to a county court judge who told me that in his court it took about two months to reply to a letter. That is simply not good enough. In other courts, it takes weeks or months to issue a summons or county court petition. In some courts there is well-documented evidence from practitioners that, when the postal budget runs out, the court does not send out replies to letters or summonses until the next month's budget is available.
If business is to be transferred to the county courts, we must have continuous trial centres. It is not good enough for a trial on a major issue in a county court to begin one day, be put off for three weeks and then be put off for another six weeks.
Whether there is a transfer of business or not, it is important that the county courts work efficiently and use their surplus fee income for the improvement of the service rather than showing a profit which is put into the Treasury. Litigants pay for a service in their fees, so if there is a surplus of fees let it go to improve the service, not to provide money for public expenditure.
I turn lastly to developments which the Labour party intends to bring about in the legal services and the legal system. I have already mentioned some changes in my remarks. The Opposition's principle is that real equality under the law is possible only if people have the ability to enforce their rights. I always refer to the quotation of Anatole France adopted by the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers:

61
"The law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."
That sums up the notion that freedom of equality under the law does not always meet reality. In the words of the Labour party policy review:
"Real equality under the law only exists in a society which provides equal access to the law and equal treatment before the courts. Neither is provided under our present legal system."
There can be no equality of representation when there are gross social and economic discrepancies.
Advice and representation must never be limited by inability to pay. That is why we say that coverage of legal aid advice must be restored and extended to representation before coroners' courts, tribunals such as the immigration and social security appeal tribunals and the Appeal Court. I use the word "representation" in a wide sense for a particular reason. In some cases the services of a consumer adviser, or a specialist such as a refugee worker, immigration counsellor or non-lawyer who specialise in social security, will be just as appropriate and sometimes more appropriate than the services of a solicitor or barrister. It is important that the lay person should be able to obtain trained, professional, objective and adequate representation which is relevant to the case.
Equality under the law is not simply about individual rights. Whether in a court or tribunal, it is about organising, informing and representing consumers, either individually or collectively. Representing and advocating consumers' rights should not be limited to members of the legal profession. I do not exclude the legal profession for one moment. Often it can represent people in cases of consumer rights, patient rights, equal opportunities, tenants' rights and rights of the small business man in partnership with other representatives.
I pay tribute to my local law centre, which has done a great deal for a group of people who own small businesses in the Brixton area. People found themselves assailed by large financial institutions who, for example, want to take away their security of tenure as a tenant and substitute a licence. To reflect the breadth of provision in the legal aid system the Labour party would extend the scope of the Legal Aid Board to that of a legal services commission. Furthermore, we would provide equality of access to the professions. I know that there have been improvements, but in my experience it is particularly difficult for someone to be called to the Bar and to succeed if he or she is from a working class background. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is a problem in being called to the Bar. People from a working class background who go into the solicitors' profession are guaranteed an income almost as soon as they qualify, but that is not so with the Bar. That is not a reflection on the Bar or an attack on it, but we must recognise that there is a problem. If one is from a family with a low income, it is difficult to support oneself during the initial period. We should encourage such people to go into the professions.
The composition of the professions should represent and reflect the composition of the population that they advise and represent in court. The same is true of the composition of the judiciary and magistracy. I use the word "Bench" to cover both. Like the professions, the Bench must be more representative of the community that it serves and show greater social awareness. There have been well-publicised cases of judges who do not seem to understand the social conditions of those who appear
62
before them. A joke is sometimes made about a judge who is reputed to have put an alcoholic on probation. He asked him to promise that he would never drink again, not even a small sip of sherry before dinner. The judiciary and the Bench do not reflect the population that they represent. That causes difficulties.
Our system of selecting, training and promoting magistrates and judges remains mysterious, secretive and unaccountable and reeks of patronage. It should be neither the duty nor the privilege of a political Cabinet Minister to appoint members of the Bench. A Labour Government would create an independent judicial appointments commission, free from political control and better equipped to appoint those who sit in judgment on fellow citizens. We shall have a department for the administration of legal affairs, directly accountable through a Minister to the House of Commons and responsible for legal aid, courts, tribunals and their procedures, the judicial commission and the whole range of advice and representation. Such a department would be charged with putting the needs of users and consumers first. We want an efficient, user-friendly, legal system, not one which is full of mystery and lacks accountability.
I know that this is only a personal view, but I find the courts intimidating. The judge is dressed in the clothes of another century—[ Laughter.] I am simply remarking on the intimidatory appearance of those who wear wigs, Mr. Speaker. It was no reflection on the Chair. Our courts are intimidating. Even the construction of the dais is intended to rick the necks of those who sit in the well of the court having to look at the judge. We must construct a less intimidating, more friendly, legal system.
The Labour party does not want a legal system which is narrowly bounded by the organisation of the Bar, solicitors and the formal court framework. We interpret the need to provide legal services widely as a need for a network of advice, representation and assistance to uphold citizens' rights. The Government and local authorities jointly have a duty to provide such services through advice centres, law centres and a variety of institutions which supplement and provide access, as well as through the traditional legal professions.
There is no point is giving people rights or imposing duties on others unless the way in which we provide legal aid and advice and organise the professions turns rights and duties into realities. That is the policy that the Labour party will pursue when it is elected to office.
6.21 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on his good fortune in the ballot and on his discrimination in making use of that opportunity to bring so many important topics before the House.
As I read the motion, I found myself wishing that the hon. Gentleman would cheer up a little. As I read through the catalogue of disasters that he perceived I was reminded of a song of my youth in which the author recalls the lurid and various physical misfortunes that befall what nowadays is called his extended family. The hon. Gentleman looks at the family of legal services and sees nothing but feuding, crises of confidence and a serious state of collapse, a sort of super-collapse. It is not like that out of doors and I hope to take some time to justify that assertion.

63
The hon. Gentleman asked many questions. He had the courtesy to send me a fax this afternoon which set out some of them. It was not particularly legible, more because of the handwriting than because of the technology. The hon. Gentleman asked many questions during his interesting speech and I shall endeavour to deal with many of them. I cannot deal with all of them. If I did, I could not make some of the points that I have prepared. Consequently, what I have to say will be more disjointed than I should like, although perhaps not more disjointed than usual.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I agreed that there was a serious crisis affecting the Crown prosecution service. The answer is no. I acknowledge readily the handicaps which have always afflicted it and which continue to do so, but they are diminishing. In the words of the Director of Public Prosecutions in his recent evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the service is "making progress" towards its objectives. There is no crisis. Nor do I consider there to be feuding with the police or anything like it and I shall take more time on that shortly.
It follows that my answer to the hon. Gentleman's question whether I agree that the Crown prosecution service should be scrapped and started again is a resounding no. I do not agree that it has damaged the criminal justice system. Quite the reverse. There are many complimentary observations to be found in some of the representations made to the Select Committee and many more that come to me from magistrates, judges and others to the effect that great advantage has stemmed from the institution of the service.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) strongly support the principle of separating the prosecution decisions from those of the investigation of criminal offences and initial charging. That is common ground between us. So far as I know, nobody who made representations of a formal nature to the Select Committee has questioned the desirability and propriety of that principle.
We must ensure that a new service, whose inception constituted a major revolution in the conduct of our affairs, settles down and is given the resources to enable it to do its job. I agree with those who say that the service started too soon, in the sense that the time scale imposed on the Government by the abolition of the metropolitan county councils did not permit sufficient time for a smooth transition. One should acknowledge that it did not permit sufficient time for the examination of every possibility that might have to be faced. Accordingly, it has been common ground among those who have studied these matters, not least those who represent the Government, that the service suffered in its inception because of the time scale imposed on it.
It is also fair to mention that the new Crown prosecution service had the misfortune to come into being at a time of rapidly increasing growth in the demand for the services of lawyers. It was a time when the rewards of the private sector rose dramatically, as though it were caught in some thermal current. That made it imperative that the conditions of service, particularly of salary,
64
offered by the Crown prosecution service should be so attractive as to be able to compete at least reasonably effectively with the private sector.
Everybody agrees that it will never be possible for those in the public service to be rewarded on the scale commensurate with the highest rewards available in the private sector. There are compensating advantages in working for the Crown. Nevertheless, there comes a time when the disparity between the two levels of salary becomes so great that we fail to retain people of experience and to recruit people of sufficient quality. That assessment is not a science; it is an art, in which one gets better with greater experience.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leicester, East for what he said about the evidence of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Select Committee. One would not have expected anybody of the quality of Mr. Allan Green to display anything except complete professional honesty and candour, to use the hon. Gentleman's expression. It was notable from Mr. Green's evidence that he made no bones about the existence of those handicaps that I have endeavoured to describe.
The hon. Gentleman did not do justice to the optimistic cast of the DPP's evidence, particularly his insistence that real progress is being made.
Mr. Vaz rose——
The Attorney-General: I have many questions to answer, and the hon. Gentleman spoke for quite a long time. However, I shall give way.
Mr. Vaz: I am most grateful to the Attorney-General.
On the question of DPP evidence, I accept that the Attorney-General thinks that there is no crisis of confidence. By saying that, in his view, the Crown prosecution service has not damaged the reputation of the criminal justice system he rejects the premise put forward in the police evidence. Does the Attorney-General stand by the DPP's statement that at all ranks in the police service there are officers who fail to co-operate fully with the Crown prosecution service?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman must not be mischievous. He knows perfectly well that I have a statutory relationship with the Director of Public Prosecutions—a relationship of superintendence. The director gave full evidence about the need for co-operation between the police service and the Crown prosecution service. As the professional head of the Crown prosecution service, he gave it as his view that in some areas there was less co-operation than was desirable. It is not right, especially in advance of my own evidence to the Select Committee, to ask me the kind of questions that the hon. Gentleman has been asking. I shall say only that the director, as professional head of the Crown prosecution service, is an independent public official in whose qualities—including the integrity, percipience and thoroughness of grasp that I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge the director has demonstrated—I have the highest confidence. Beyond that, I will not permit the hon. Gentleman to drive a wedge between myself and the police service, between myself and the Director of Public Prosecutions, or between myself and anybody else. I have come to the House to answer questions and to set forth

65
what the Government are doing as regards the Crown prosecution service and the other legal services to which the motion refers.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the Crown prosecution service and its staff—in particular, the staff in his own area of Leicestershire. There is much about which to be optimistic. Great progress has been made. I shall itemise some of the principal matters briefly, as other hon. Members wish to speak. Everyone knows that the service has had difficulty in recruiting enough lawyers. The director has therefore, with my full support, pursued a number of initiatives aimed at making the service more attractive to lawyers. In the last year there have been substantial improvements in pay at all grades, but in particular at Crown prosecutor and senior Crown prosecutor grades. Here the increases in the minimum and maximum salary have been 27·5 and 41 per cent. respectively—in London, 43 and 61 per cent. respectively. Those percentages relate to the initial salaries in 1986, but there were major increases during the last 12 months.
Salaries have been increased substantially all the way up the relevant scales. Senior Crown prosecutors can now earn salaries that, in some parts of the country, have led to the recruitment of equity partners from firms of solicitors in private practice. I am glad to say that there has been a vigorous and very effective recruitment advertising campaign. I dare say that hon. Members will be aware of it. The CPS is now sponsoring members of its own staff as law school students so that they may qualify as solicitors or barristers, and for all newly qualified lawyers the service now has in place a scheme by which either articles or Bar pupillage may he taken within the CPS. I take up what the hon. Member for Norwood said about earnings at the early stages of a career at the Bar, as opposed to the early stages of a career as a solicitor. Under the scheme, trainee lawyers, from the moment they undertake articles or Bar pupillage, will be paid a competitive salary—in round figures, between £9,000 and £13,000.
The CPS has already begun to benefit from this scheme, which is very much an investment for the future. The scheme should shortly begin to provide a reliable supply of thoroughly trained and well-motivated Crown prosecutors. So, there is no crisis here—and, if I may say so, I am in quite a good position to make that assertion. I see the Director of Public Prosecutions regularly and frequently to discuss the affairs of the CPS. I also see his senior staff at headquarters, and I travel the country. I have visited the service's offices up and down the country. I have been to most of its 31 areas—in some cases more than once—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has probably been to each of the rest. On such occasions I listen to the Crown prosecutors and to their support staff, to magistrates and judges, to the police, and to everybody else assembled, including, sometimes, local journalists.
The motion speaks of continued feuding between the CPS and the police—feuding that has given rise to a "crisis of confidence" between them. That is unreal. In addition, it does great injustice to two services that the motion describes as—here I agree with it; it is only seven words out of 80, but that is something—
"essential parts of the criminal justice system".
All human institutions are mortal and, therefore, liable to human frailties, as even the House occasionally recognises. From time to time, at local level, even in public institutions, there may be a disagreement or a muddle or
66
a failure to do what should be done. Regrettably, this may lead to recriminations and, sometimes, to a public squabble if it gets into the courts. I do not contend that in the three years that have elapsed since the inception of the CPS this kind of thing has never happened in the relationship between the service and the police. I dare say that on occasions it has, but I hope and believe that these occasions have been rare. When they have occurred, no doubt the CPS has sometimes been at fault, and sometimes the police.
Equally, I think it quite likely that in some quarters within the police service there remains some lack of enthusiasm for the concept of a separate prosecution service. I think that that has become pretty rare, but I dare say that it still exists. When one considers the nature of the legislation that this Conservative Government introduced to give effect to the real principle of the report of the Philips Royal Commission—the separation of prosecution decisions from police functions—it is hardly surprising that, sometimes at any rate, there has been some resentment.
Mr. Vaz: The Attorney-General is being uncharacteristically unkind to me. The word "crisis" came not from me but from the chairman of the Police Federation in his evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs last week. It is the police, not I, who, in the very first paragraph of their evidence to the Select Committee, said that the operation of the Crown prosecution service has damaged the reputation of the criminal justice system. Is the Attorney-General saying that he rejects the police argument that the system is in crisis?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is again indulging his penchant for mischief. I do not answer for the evidence of the chief constable who signed the report that was submitted to the Select Committee on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers. It will be for the Select Committee to evaluate that evidence when it has heard all the evidence given to it and has considered its report. I am entitled to say that I have never received from any chief constable individually—nor, I believe, has the Director of Public Prosecutions—any evidence couched in those terms. That description contrasts vividly with the opinions expressed publicly by the immediate past chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I shall say nothing further on that score.
There have been occasions, as the Director of Public Prosecutions has admitted, when points of irritation have arisen. They turn on such matters as the failure to warn witnesses—that was the function of the police—or perhaps upon the failure to submit witness statements in typescript rather than in manuscript. If they are in manuscript they take three times as long to read and that has an effect on efficiency. I do not doubt that, from time to time, other matters have been the cause of friction between the newly created service and the police service, for which I have a high regard. Those matters are taken up at local liaison committee level and at senior, national liaison committee level.
Recently the Director of Public Prosecutions established an interdepartmental working group to take hold of such remaining points of irritation and friction as there are to see whether they can be argued out and

67
resolved between the police, the CPS and all the other agencies involved. I am confident that the result will be fruitful.
The hon. Member for Norwood drew attention to a number of cases where people have been cross at the outcome of a trial, the withdrawal of a prosecution, the reduction of a charge and so on. Good news gets crowded out, but bad news makes headlines. There is a common perception that the CPS undercharges, contrary to correct police recommendations to charge for a more serious offence. I cannot claim that that has never happened as I cannot know, but I suggest that there are occasions when the reverse occurs. However, we read nothing of them, or, if we do, they are not remembered. I shall give relevant examples of such cases, which I drew from my visit to Greater Manchester last week.
Three of those examples concern police recommendations for careless driving charges to be brought. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, East will listen, as this is important. I note that he appears to be otherwise engaged, no doubt signing an early-day motion on another matter. I should be grateful if I could just have his attention on this matter.
While the hon. Gentleman was otherwise engaged I referred to police recommendations, made in three separate cases, that a charge for careless driving should be brought. In each of those cases the CPS prosecuted for causing death by reckless driving. Convictions resulted in each of those cases and prison sentences were imposed in two of them. The fourth instance to which I want to refer occurred within the past two years and represents an even more stark instance of the CPS going for a more serious charge. In that case the police recommended that no action should be taken, but the CPS brought a charge for murder and a conviction for murder resulted.
I do not claim for one moment that those instances are representative, because, in the vast majority of cases, there is no difference between the opinion of the police and the CPS over which charge should be brought. In the light of the criticism that one reads of the CPS undercharging, I mention them because I believe that they deserve to be known and because I believe that the CPS deserves to have them known. We do not read about such cases.
The other day the Director of Public Prosecutions said that 5 million cases had been prosecuted by the CPS in the past three years and yet in the nature of things we read only about that minuscule fraction in which something is thought to have gone wrong. When it has gone wrong we are seldom able to learn whose fault it really was.
The hon. Member for Norwood referred to the prosecution of Kevin Taylor and said that if we decide to drop a case we should do so before £1 million has been spent. The hon. Gentleman was not referring to the merits of that case and neither am I, but I am entitled to refer to the public fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has requested the chief constable of Greater Manchester to consider whether a police inquiry should be set up into certain aspects of the police evidence given in that case.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to an Office of Fair Trading case, but in fact it was brought by the Department of Trade and Industry. That case related to insider dealing and the prosecution was withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman quoted that case as an instance of failure on the part of the
68
CPS, but it was a DTI prosecution and, as it happens, that prosecution was withdrawn by reason of judicial ruling on public interest immunity that rendered further proceedings impossible.
Mr. Fraser: I must point out that I used the collective phrase "prosecution service". Is the Attorney-General saying that in the Coren and Greenwood case the same Secretary of State who initiated the prosecution then decided to give Crown immunity to some of the evidence?
The Attorney-General: No. In cases of that kind the Secretary of State is the prosecuting authority. The question of public interest immunity arose—there is a duty to claim such immunity, which cannot be waived. A judicial ruling on the scope of public interest immunity led to the result I have described.
A valid example of the performance of the CPS is the percentage of cases brought by the CPS that are dismissed in the magistrates court. In relation to the total number of defendants whose cases are finalised, the figure is 1·7 per cent. The number of acquittals in the Crown court in relation to the total number of defendants whose cases are finalised is 11·52 per cent. Taken together, the number of CPS cases acquitted or dismissed at the magistrates and Crown courts is equivalent to 2·44 per cent.
I ask the House to accept from me that talk of a feud between the CPS and the police and of a crisis in the affairs of the CPS is sensationalist and alarmist nonsense. I pay warm and grateful tribute to the way in which so many of the police, at all levels, have adapted to what was a revolutionary change. Equally I pay warm and grateful tribute to the dedicated and scrupulously independent staff of the CPS under the exemplary leadership of Mr. Allan Green QC.
The motion tabled by the hon. Member for Leicester, East goes on to deal with legal aid, the duty solicitor scheme, law centres and family courts. I am afraid I must deal with them briefly.
As to legal aid, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has set in hand a review that promises the biggest revision of legal aid since it was set up 45 years ago. That is in line with the reforming pattern of my noble and learned Friend's tenure of the Woolsack, which is without rival. The hon. Gentleman asked why that review is taking so long, but it is an extremely sensitive review that extends over civil, criminal and matrimonial legal aid. As and when matters are identified that need immediate treatment, steps will be taken to secure that that treatment is effected. That is a proper and sensible way to go about it.
The hon. Gentleman goes on about the numbers of people who are now eligible. It does not matter how many people are eligible when we do not know what proportion of the population is likely to engage in what type of litigation. What matters is that, based on sensible research, we know people's needs in relation to a particular type of litigation. That is being undertaken by the Legal Aid Board and our review.
The duty solicitor scheme came into being as part of the reforms—again introduced by a Conservative Government—connected with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In 1987, the Lord Chancellor commissioned research into advice and assistance at police stations, and the operation of the 24-hour duty solicitor scheme because he wanted to review the existing

69
procedures. He wanted advice about whether changes were necessary or desirable. The report was published in November. It highlights the number of sectors requiring further consideration, in particular the role of the police and the quality of advice given by solicitors. The Legal Aid Board, which administers the scheme, recently issued its own consultation paper. The board will report to the Lord Chancellor this spring, taking account of the matters raised in the Lord Chancellor's research.
These developments are all of a pattern with the programme of improvement in the quality of legal services generally. It is a pattern of vigorous inquiry, analysis and action. It extends to franchising, which is being vigorously examined to discover whether it may lead to greater efficiency.
Immense changes have taken place in the county courts. They are dealing with more cases and, in many instances, more efficiently than before. There are shortages of staff, but the Lord Chancellor has secured another £70 million in resources for the forthcoming financial year, another 350 staff will be recruited, and another 100 in connection with the ongoing implementation of the civil justice review.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will cheer up. I have good reason to——
Mr. Vaz rose——
The Attorney-General: I shall not give way because time is getting on.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will cheer up because, although I have good reason to know of the difficulties in the county courts, there are major pluses to be recorded in their performance, and the prospects for next year are encouraging.
Law centres generally perform a valuable service. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Legal Aid Board has taken over responsibility for the seven legal aid centres that were previously funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Their future will be reviewed.
Family courts have a great deal of support. However, there has always been a good deal less particularity about what they actually do. Before setting up what is called a family court, it is essential to have reformed the law relating to family matters so that the law is uniform and coherent—it certainly is not at present. The Government get a considerable amount of criticism for not having introduced the family court, but we are well on the way to developing a family court.
The Children Act 1989 will be implemented progressively over the next two years. That brought together the law relating to children in an admirable way. It has attracted general admiration, but we are a long way yet from that uniform system of law relating to the family that is the essential pre-condition of a family court.
We are asked when our rolling programme will be completed. It is difficult to set a date for that when it partly depends on reports from the Law Commission that have yet to be delivered. The Law Commission is considering the law of divorce, and will report on it. We do not know when we shall get that report, but it will be extremely influential.
What I have to say about family law has been said in previous debates in the House on the Children Act. There is everything to be said for bringing the law together, making it uniform, coherent and thoroughly up to date. However, that must be done before we set up anything
70
approaching a family court. I hope that that day will come and I think that those who share my view have good reason to be expectant. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take heart, and reflect that hopes are being fulfilled and progress is being made.
In whatever part of the legal services touched on by this thoroughly depressing and depressed motion there is a record of research, review and reform unrivalled by any Government over 50 years. The subject was left untouched by successive Labour Governments in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Not everything can be made to fall neatly into place at once. To recognise that and proceed step by step is part of the art and responsibility of government. Conversely, to demand the impossible by yesterday is part of the art and irresponsibility of opposition, so charmingly and classically evinced in the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, East.
6.56 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall start what is bound to be a short contribution by declaring my interest as a practising barrister, a recorder and secretary of the all-party barristers group.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Does he share with me a sadness that only members of the legal profession have been called in this excellent debate? I was hoping to appear on behalf of the consumer.
Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman took twice as long as I had agreed he could take, and I have no comment to make on his contribution.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on initiating the debate and I shall make just two points. First, I agree with almost everything said by the Attorney-General about the Crown prosecution service. Public confidence in that service has been undermined. I can say that, but the Attorney-General cannot, even if he believes it. Public confidence has been quite deliberately undermined in some minority and restricted quarters of the police service. I hope that the police service will co-operate far more with the Crown prosecution service in future. The important thing about the CPS is that it is independent—and that means independent of the police as well as everyone else.
The way in which I regard the Crown prosecution service and make my assessment of it is by comparing it with what went on before. It seems that, despite considerable teething troubles, the Crown prosecution service has combined the best of the old county prosecuting solicitor services—some of which were extremely good—with an avoidance of the worst services in a system in which private solicitors, some of whom were very good and some very bad at prosecuting, conducted prosecutions.
Salaries at the bottom of the professional grades of the CPS are still too low, particularly in London. In a medium-sized west end firm, a newly qualified and admitted solicitor commands a salary of £23,000 or £24,000 a year. I hope that in order to achieve the necessary quality for dealing with what is often difficult work in London, the Attorney-General will try to ensure that salaries that are at least broadly competitive with not the highest new solicitor's salaries, but the medium range in central London, are available to young solicitors.

71
The hon. Member for Leicester, East mentioned plea bargaining in a way that suggested it was wrong. I have never been able to understand why there is so much criticism of plea bargaining, which goes on now and has always gone on. If it did not take place the criminal courts of this country would grind to a halt. I ask the Government to recognise that plea bargaining takes place and to encourage a much more open system for it.
We must all confess to having been involved in plea bargains in the past, so why cannot we do it in open court? It shortens cases and benefits the criminal justice system. There would be much less complaint about plea bargaining if it were done openly and above board. Not juries—if there is a jury trial—but the public at large could then see that plea bargaining plays a useful, efficient, necessary and real part in what happens in courts.
I should like to say much more in the debate, but time does not permit that. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) took up an unwarranted amount of time——
It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that motion No. 3 on the Order Paper stands in my name and concerns an important subject: the pre-conditions necessary for a prime ministerial visit to South Africa. I know that, several times during the private notice question and the statement, you mentioned your concern about the time taken out of private Members' business. Would it be appropriate to discuss with the Procedure Committee whether, instead of giving us half a day, finishing automatically at 7 pm, it might be right to give private Members' motions a certain time limit? That would assist you in your job of protecting the interests of private Members and Back Benchers.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that some of the speeches were very long, I would have to agree. But I think that he is pushing his luck somewhat if he believes that his motion No. 3 would have been reached in a half-day debate. A number of hon. Members wanted to participate in the debate that has just concluded, and there would have been another debate on the Health Service after it, if time had permitted.

Orders of the Day
  Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
    New clause 1

      REPLICATION OF PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY FUNCTIONS
      'The Secretary of State shall ensure that the functions hitherto exercised by the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers are not, directly or indirectly, replicated within any department of Government.'.—[Mr. O'Brien.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      7.2 pm
      Mr. William O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause refers to the replication of Property Service Agency functions—the mini-PSAs. We went into this in some depth in Committee, and the Minister replied to some of our questions. On 16 January he referred to the Ministry of Defence carrying out work that is now done by the PSA, and accepted that the Ministry is now recruiting people to take over the work of the PSA. Between 700 and 800 people will be employed to do the work in the Department. The Minister said that MOD was the largest Department, so it would employ the largest number of people to do PSA work.
      In Committee I also asked the Minister about other Departments, in particular about the Home Office and its prisons. I also mentioned the Department of Social Security's new offices to be built in various parts of the country, and the Department of Health's hospitals and clinics. I also referred to other Departments that would assume the responsibilities of the PSA. My question was:
      "Is the Minister now saying that all those Departments will have their accountants, consultants, engineers and supervisory staff?"
      The Minister replied:
      "That is right."
      In other words, the Minister said that all other Departments will have their own staff to do the PSA's work. We have agreed on defence, but do I take it that the Cabinet Office, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Employment, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Health, the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the Scottish Office, the Department of Social Security, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Transport, the Treasury and the Welsh Office will all start recruiting personnel to do the work upon which the Property Services Agency is now engaged? Will all those Departments take on accountants, consultants, engineers and supervisory staff, and will they be on the payroll of those Departments? If so, the estimated figure given us in Committee—1,000 people—must be far short of the true number who will be employed in the various Departments. May we have all the details and information?
      If what the Minister told us in Committee was factual, it is obvious that value for money is important. So the

      73
      Minister must explain where the Government stand in relation to value for money in the privatisation of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers.
      The Minister has not dealt with the Wardale inquiry, in Committee or in the House. He has commissioned no real inquiry to prove that the privatisation of the PSA is on the right lines and will benefit the Government. There has been no exercise to show that the Government's approach to the privatisation of the PSA is right. The Wardale inquiry, which was never acted or reported on in detail, identified the principal problems in the PSA. It said that the fundamental problem related to management's reluctance to acknowledge that problems existed, and to its lack of vigour in handling them once they had been identified.
      People involved in the inquiry believe that this situation shows a degree of complacency by the management. That complacency is reflected in its attitude towards dishonesty and fraud, and we raised those issues in Committee. We wanted an assurance that that situation would not be mirrored in all the Departments that I referred to in my earlier remarks.
      The Wardale inquiry said—the Minister has made this point on more than one occasion—that the purpose of untying the various Departments from the PSA was to allow them to have more financial control over their own affairs. One has to ask whether the various Departments understand the concept of financial control sufficiently when it comes to the actions and functions of the Property Services Agency. Unless there has been extensive training and consideration of the problems of financial control, there will be mismanagement when the PSA is privatised, as the Wardale inquiry pointed out.
      If management control techniques are not adequate within the various Departments when the PSA is untied from them, it will be difficult to detect irregularities, unless there is to he some sort of in-depth study of problems that may develop in the various Departments which I listed. In Committee we wanted more information, and we mentioned the serious issue that I have referred to tonight. In Committee the Minister said, after he had been questioned:
      "I am not sure that we can take the discussion much further, Sir Giles"—
      he was the Chairman.
      "We have had a good debate on clause 1 and I hope that the Committee will agree to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D. 16 January 1990; c. 121–22.]
      We had not had sufficient discussion. We needed to examine and to inquire about a great deal more. The Minister did not come up with the answers to questions that were put to him. Therefore, I shall put further questions to him tonight.
      Is it proposed that all Departments, including the Cabinet Office, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office, will have their own corps of people to do the work that the PSA and the Crown Suppliers carried out?
      The Minister said that a lot of the work would be let out to contract but, as we mentioned to the Minister in Committee, who will supervise the contracts and tenders? Who will check the work that is carried out? We have had no answers to those questions, and I hope the Minister will answer them tonight.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument, I am uncertain whether he feels that it would be better if fewer or more
      74
      people were employed on those tasks. I am equally confused by the use of the word "replicated" in the new clause. Does that mean reproduce or diminish? It is not a word that I know, and I think that the Opposition should state whether they are in favour of more or fewer civil servants to do this work.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: I have to excuse the hon. and learned Member for not being aware of what has happened previously. We are saying that there is little cause for him and for his colleagues to support the Bill, because the present organisation—the PSA—meets all the demands of the various Departments, which will now have to recruit staff. When we say that we do not want those Departments to replicate the PSA, we mean that we do not want mini-PSAs in every Department because we consider that that would be uneconomic. It is not value for money, and would not result in good management practice.
      I ask the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) the same question that I asked the Minister. The PSA has developed various manuals on the work that it does for various Departments. Security is at the top of its list. The PSA has a manual on security in various Departments, which has been built up during years of experience—for the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Cabinet Office and the Departments of Social Security and Health. Under the new system, where will the manual go? The Minister did not answer that question in Committee. I asked him again tonight where will the centrally-owned documents which are now in the hands of the PSA be held in future? At one time, the Minister suggested that they could be held by the property holdings department, which would still be part of his Department. If that is so, why are we here? That means that we will have the same situation as we have at present. The manual will go round from Department to Department and there will be no security. That is the situation into which the Minister is leading the House. If our clause is not accepted, there will be a mishmash of security provisions throughout the various Departments.
      There is also the question of supervision to ensure that the projects demanded by the various Departments are in accordance with their specifications. Each Department will have to ensure that and will have to recruit the best personnel to carry out the work. There will be a small group of people in a Department to undertake work, whereas, at the moment, the PSA supervises projects in all Departments and can recruit the best staff. The PSA has the knowledge to carry out the work, and the Minister would be wise to leave things as they are. If that is not acceptable, I ask for the assurance that we are seeking in new clause 1—that there will be no duplication of work. Or will Conservative Members join me and my colleagues to ensure that new clause 1 stands part of the Bill? That would be in the best interests of the House and would show that we are concerned about value for money. The report of the Wardale inquiry made it abundantly clear that there must be efficient management and financial control. If there is not, there cannot be protection against dishonesty and fraud. We are trying to protect the House and to make sure that we get value for money.
      Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House exactly what will happen after privatisation if replication is allowed? I want

      75
      to be sure that my constituents have the right after privatisation to be allowed to compete properly and fairly without having set against them an in-house programme and all the problems of single action tenders that can arise through Departments giving the jobs to their own boys. I should like to be certain that there will be open and fair competition after privatisation and that nothing will be held back. I hope that the Minister can convince the House about that.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I certainly hope that I can convince my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) and the House on that important point. It would be pointless for each Department to set up its own in-house works organisation, and that is not the Government's purpose in proceeding towards the untying of Departments. The policy of untying Departments for the PSA predates the Bill and any proposals for privatisation. That is why the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is mistaken in his approach. The new clause would prevent the functions currently undertaken by the PSA and the Crown Suppliers being undertaken by other Departments. Indeed, matters would go further because the new clause would prevent the devolution of procurement responsibilities to Departments, and that is well outside the scope of the Bill.
      Untying Departments from the PSA will put financial responsibility where it should be—with the user Departments. It will enable Departments to obtain value for money through their own purchasing decisions instead of having to rely on a central Department to make the decisions for them. That is one of the fundamental principles of the financial management initiative that predates the Bill.
      Mr. O'Brien: I should like to clarify what the Minister means. Does he think that when the Home Office wants to develop or build a new prison the design work should be left to the PSA and not to the client Department, which is the Home Office? Is the Minister saying that the Home Office will not have an input into the design or building of a new prison but that it will be left to the PSA? Will the same principles apply to the building of a National Health Service hospital? Does the Minister agree that it is for the client Department to instruct the PSA, which then presents designs for which the client can choose? Is not that the way that it works?
      Mr. Chope: That is indeed the way in which the system largely works at the moment. Prior to untying, Departments had no choice but to go to the PSA. They now have the opportunity to go to other organisations. That is why the document issued by the Ministry of Defence, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, praises the essence of the financial management initiative about untying. It says that untying from the PSA will bring greater choice. That is what it is all about.
      The financial management initiative aims to obtain value for money through a clearer definition of responsibilities and the benefits of competition. To carry out those responsibilities effectively, each Department will need some expertise to know when or even how to
      76
      commission consultant advice. Departments will need to be intelligent customers for professional services. That is the essence of what is proposed.
      It might be helpful to the House if I refer briefly to an extract from the annual report of the central unit on purchasing. It states:
      "Arrangements were made to transfer financial responsibility from PSA to departments (effective from April 1989) for part 1 capital works and to simultaneously untie departments from the requirement to employ PSA. Maintenance and minor works would follow a similar path in April 1990. CUP has been directly involved in three areas:

      —development of ownership responsibilities in owning departments;

      —development of a more commercial approach to project management in PSA, together with appropriate organisational and procedural changes both in PSA and the owner departments;

      —providing specific support and professional input to individual projects.

      Major departments have adopted the concept of a single point responsibility for each capital project and many have initiated organisational changes…In some departments with large works programme, technical support organisations are being developed to assist the project sponsor. These units will provide the technical expertise necessary to inform the sponsor's decisions. This is a vital role which will significantly improve the project appraisal and management during all stages of the project."
      Fewer people are involved in that than are presently involved in the PSA. It is interesting to note that the central unit on purchasing concludes that, although it is too early to have a full assessment of the effects of untying,
      "it is already clear that project sponsors are benefiting from a more responsive and flexible PSA which, coupled with greater commercialism, should result in a significant overall improvement in project performance."
      That is the Government's aim. I hope that the House will reject the new clause.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: A terrible experience for Scotland was the PSA construction of new court buildings. The PSA was advised by the Scottish courts administration. The buildings are all impracticable, extravagant and extraordinarily badly designed. If they had been subject to commercial competition, it is impossible to believe that buildings that touch upon the lives of so many people could either have been so expensively built or so badly designed.
      Mr. Chope: I am disappointed to hear what my hon. and learned Friend says. I visited some of the court projects in Scotland and I know that the client, the Scottish Office department responsible for courts in Scotland, is much impressed by the work that the Property Services Agency has carried out. I looked at the new sheriff court in Glasgow. Although the design of the building may not be to everybody's taste and perhaps not to the taste of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), he cannot disagree that the building is mammoth and that it is effective for the function that it has to perform.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am amazed that the Minister chose Glasgow sheriff court as the building on which to model the excellence of the PSA. A more impracticable building could not be discovered. It was vastly over budget, 90 per cent. of the space is unused, and to reach the only consultation room the solicitor is required to pass between the cages in which prisoners awaiting trial are kept. It takes half an hour to get from the court to visit a

      77
      client. There are 15 armchairs in the dock but only two places for counsel who represent the people in the dock. If that is good design, God help us.
      Mr. Chope: I am sorry that that court's design does not appeal to my hon. and learned Friend, who has experience of using it
      The best court building that the PSA has commissioned in recent years is the court building in Truro, which has won probably half a dozen design awards. It is regarded as one of the best buildings built last year. I was lucky enough to be present when its foundation stone was laid and at its opening. Everybody is much impressed by it. Many other court buildings for which the PSA has been responsible have received similar accolades from the architectural profession.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given what I said in Committee, the Minister may be surprised that on Report I rise to agree with him strongly. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I do not take lightly what was said by someone who is not only a Back-Bench Member of Parliament but chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, an appointment that is made by the Government. This is not a jocular matter, because by implication some serious charges have been made against some important people, whose reputation may be affected. At his convenience, will the Minister, or the Secretary of State, write to me commenting on the intervention made by the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)? This is a grave issue.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Chope: I do not think that I could go as far as that——
      Mr. Dalyell: Why?
      Mr. Chope: Because architecture is a subjective assessment of buildings. Architects disagree about the merits of a particular building. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross holds a different view about the sheriff court in Glasgow from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
      Mr. Clive Soley: I congratulate the Minister on defending the architecture and the amount and quality of work done on those court buildings. If the PSA is so good, and I agree that it is, why are the Government privatising it?
      Mr. Chope: The answer is quite straightforward: because the PSA is so good, it is important that its expertise is available in a wider market.
      Mr. Soley: Is not the danger that the PSA will be lost? We know that it did extremely well before the Government began to run it down and turn it into a second-class service. Therefore, its value is not as high as it would have been a few years ago. Its past considerable achievements could be maintained if the Government were prepared to back it.
      Mr. Chope: The facts show that the quality of work that the PSA is commissioning and doing is improving year after year. The work that has been done at Kew gardens is an example of the high esteem in which the PSA is held. The restoration of Fort George is a magnificent example of
      78
      the PSA at its best. I am sure that it will have an enormous amount to offer the private sector, and I hope that it will do so not only domestically but internationally.
      Mr. Richard Holt: Before we are carried away on a tide of euphoria, I hope that hon. Members will recall the report that the Select Committee on the Environment made after it had interviewed and examined the PSA. In support of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), may I say that the Glasgow sheriff court was completed by the PSA, but the new senior judge wanted to enter court not from the left but from the right, so it had to start all over again. Hon. Members should consider the PSA's record on finishing jobs on time, but they should not consider its record on finishing work within the cost yardstick, otherwise they will have a heart attack.
      Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Sometimes delays are incurred because, for example, a member of the judiciary disagrees about the design of a building. Sometimes those delays are blamed unfairly on the PSA, when truly the responsibility lies with the client. That is why the essence of the financial management initiative is to ensure that responsibility for such delay lies where it truly should—with the client.
      We have explored the new clause conscientiously and thoroughly, and I hope that the House will reject it.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: The point of the new clause is to avoid empire building within Departments. I am sure that Departments will find reasons for employing experts in security, building design or other matters.
      The new clause aims to avoid duplication of functions that are covered by the PSA at present. I agree with the Minister about effective and efficient administration, but the danger is that duplication will affect the purpose of the Bill. The new clause has much to commend it in that respect.
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I feel that I should intervene, given the remarks made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to which I do not object. I am chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, and I hope that I was chosen for that position because I am sensitive to the appearance of buildings and their practicality and cost.
      My hon. Friend the Minister said that Glasgow sheriff court is an example of the excellence of the Property Services Agency. In my opinion, it is a singular example of the fallacy of the monopoly of the PSA and of the excellence of the purpose of the Bill.
      Glasgow sheriff court rivals in its appearance Goebbels' propaganda ministry in East Berlin, which still stands. It is brutal and hideous. Originally, it was planned to be one third higher than it is, but because the extravagance of its absurdity prevented it from being practical it was required to be one third lower. It is a building of great impracticality, and 90 per cent. of its usable space is unused. It is ill-designed, greatly extravagant and preposterous. Without challenge—the PSA cannot be subject to challenge—the agency decided that the bench in the court should be 40 to 50 ft long. The sheriff therefore cannot speak to the shorthand writer, who is too far away. The witness box is such that the jury cannot observe the witness, and the presiding judge is lower, and therefore

      79
      appears lower in status, than those appearing in court. There are 15 swivelling armchairs in the docks of the jury courts. I presume that the courts are expected to house 15 accused people, but the table at which their representatives sit has room for only two people on each side. Presumably, on the prosecution side will be the procurator fiscal and his assistant, and on the defence side one advocate and one solicitor.
      The building is remarkably impractical. It has certain modern, tasteless features. The great arms of Glasgow has been smashed into bits so that it is incomprehensible and cast in granite over the door. I imagine that the hall is twice the length of the Chamber—for what purpose, I cannot imagine. The building is impractical. To go to the cells, one must go on a long trail, and there is no system of communication between the courts and the cells. At the cells, there is a huge area where the police can undertake their activities and it is unlike any other court that I have seen. However, there is almost no provision in the cell area for solicitors or lawyers to interview their clients. I question whether the Property Services Agency can design courts.
      Mr. O'Brien: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the court's design and layout were totally the PSA's responsibility and the client department was not involved? Does he believe that the client department does not become involved in that work?
      Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: No, but unfortunately that makes it worse. The Scottish courts administration is the adult child of the PSA. There are extraordinarily badly designed courts in Airdrie, Greenock and Glasgow. Look at what the PSA and the Scottish courts administration propose for the High Court in Glasgow, one of the great buildings of the city. They propose a ruinous and impractical scheme, which was opposed by everyone else, as was the Glasgow sheriff court which practises therein. Therefore, nothing could be better than challenging the PSA's dominance.
      I have had the benefit, or otherwise, of being a Minister. On the first day I moved into my small office, I was visited by six people from the PSA—Mr. Curtain, Mr. Carpet, Mr. Desk, Mr. Chair, Mr. Picture and Mr. Someone Else—who told me that they would transform my office at a cost of £6,600. When the PSA offered to move the Crown Office into the royal high school building in Edinburgh, it did the same, except this time at a cost of £160,000. Monopolies of this kind that fall to Ministers and Government agencies should be challenged by those who have more common sense and more idea of economy and practicalities. If the Minister wants to come with us to Glasgow sheriff court, either as a client or as a colleague, I shall show him the absurdity of the work carried out by the PSA.
      Mr. Dalyell: I have not yet been to Glasgow sheriff court, but I am not sure that I want to go as either the client or the colleague of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). I have, however, been to Fort George, where the work was done brilliantly. Last week, I was at Kew gardens for the speech by the Prince of Wales on rain forests-a matter close to the heart of the Secretary of State. The experts, whom we both
      80
      know, were full of praise for the PSA's careful work to take account of special needs. The PSA did a brilliant job there.
      Mr. O'Brien: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) if he believes that, a private
      consultant or architect designed a court house, there would not be changes to the design. Changes are made whether a building is designed by the PSA or by a private company or architect. If a judge says that he wants to enter the court room from the right, that will affect the PSA and the private consultant. If that is the Bill's basis, there are no grounds for pursuing it, because nothing will change.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Holt: Paragraph 72 of the Environment Select Committee's report states:
      "The original concept of an all-embracing agency has failed the test of experience. The PSA was established to provide a total service to Departments, but its functions have gradually been chipped away by its client Departments. It has been found to be too impotent and too cumbersome, with lines of communications that are far too long."
      That damning paragraph explains why we need to privatise the PSA.
      Mr. O'Brien: The Minister referred to project performance as one reason for giving the various functions to the client Departments. How does one measure project performance unless there is someone in each Department measuring it? The Select Committee's report did not refer to project performance. Research is needed to determine what the Minister means by measuring project performance. He paid credit to the Truro court house. If such expertise is available, why do the Government want to lose it? The Minister said that he would like the PSA to move into a wider market. Why are we not discussing a provision to allow that to happen, instead of destroying it?
      Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Government. I should like to make it absolutely clear that the Select Committee's report was a unanimous report by all parties.
      Mr. O'Brien: There is no reference in the report to the Minister's point about project performance. I should be interested to learn how the Minister will ensure that project performance is measured in every Department that will benefit from the Bill, as they will all have their own mini-PSAs.
      We should discuss how to give those people with expertise in the PSA and the Crown Suppliers more opportunities to work in the private sector. Because they are dictated to by the Department of the Environment, they are prevented from undertaking other work, just as happens with local authority public works departments. If the aim is to provide a wider market for the expertise of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers, that could be provided without this legislation.
      The Minister has not given us a good reason why we should not pursue the new clause. I know that we have only limited time in which to debate the new clause and amendments, and the Third Reading, and I do not intend to divide the House now; we intend, however, to divide it on Third Reading.
      Question put and negatived.

    Clause 1

      TRANSFER OF PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY AND CROWN SUPPLIERS
      Mr. John McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 21, at end insert ', with the exception of the Security Group of the Property Services Agency and any property, rights or liabilities related to security work.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this we may take amendment No. 4, in clause 6, page 3, leave out line 46.
      Mr. McFall: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked the Minister what advice he had on security, and whether it was properly discussed with those responsible. When he asked whether the matter had been referred to either the secretariat or the Joint Intelligence Committee, the Minister failed to answer. If he had said that it was subject to proper discussion, we would not now be discussing the amendment. I suspect that there is now a bigger tale to be told.
      We also asked in Committee whether the Minister had raised the matter with the Ministry of Defence. He replied that the Secretary of State for Defence, being a member of the Cabinet, agreed with the decisions that had been made, but again he did not say what the security personnel thought about the matter. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I had an opportunity to raise the point with MOD officials, who replied—in a manner that was both sophisticated and as bland as the Minister's—that they had their concerns, but that those concerns would be discussed later. In our view, they have not been resolved because the Minister has not turned his attention to them.
      I can give an example. The Select Committee discussed the physical security of military installations. Having engaged in public discussions with the MOD over the past few weeks, we have discovered that when security is handed over to private firms they pay poverty wages. We have also discovered massive loopholes. Last week, for instance, I asked the Assistant Under-Secretary whether it was possible for someone to deceive the authorities by assuming a different name, and to get into a military installation. The reply was that it was eminently possible. When I asked the MOD police, I received the same answer. That loophole must be closed.
      I fear that the Minister has paid even less attention to the Bill's security implications than the MOD has paid to the physical security of military installations, and that the consequences of his lack of rigour may be severe. He has responded inadequately not only to Opposition Members, but to his hon. Friends. In Committee, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that he hoped that the Minister would take on board the concern felt by many hon. Members; again, the Minister would give no details.
      The Minister himself said in Committee that the majority of the PSA's work was sensitive in security terms, some of it extremely sensitive: for example, more than two thirds of its new construction and maintenance programme is for the MOD. He cited the Clyde submarine base in my constituency, where 110 major projects are currently under way. I take his point that much of the work is untied at present, and that most of those 110
      82
      contracts will be carried out by private firms. I am concerned about the maintenance jobs. In the case of the submarine base, 200 jobs are involved. There are 90 industrial and 36 technical staff. It is important for staff to have a deep knowledge of the workings of such plants, which are enormously complex technically, and such knowledge can be gained only through historical familiarity with them.
      I told the Minister that people who knew had told me that it would take a new operator at least 12 to 15 months to gain hands-on experience of the plant—to build up expertise on a learning curve. How can that happen if the contracts are subject to competitive tender, as the Minister says that they will be? The logic of privatisation is that the PSA must compete for work; if it is not to compete, what is the use of privatisation? If work is always given to the PSA for security reasons, I suggest that Faslane and other such installations should not be included in the privatisation proposals.
      In Committee, the Minister was asked whether he had undertaken a risk assessment, taking account of possible management failure. The answer was no. In view of that, I consider it not only reckless but dangerous to proceed with the privatisation programme. The leaked report by the PSA's regional directors predicts a 32 per cent. cut in business contracts and a possible loss of 200 jobs. Still worse, the loss of either Rosyth or Faslane would have a major impact on the PSA's viability. I ask the Minister to consider not only the financial but the security implications.
      It would be fine if the Minister's case was consistent, but the Committee knew from the outset that it was not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) asked a question which bears repetition: if the Secretary of State's car and the design and security of Minister's homes are to be under the control of the PSA or a suitable Government Department, how can it be acceptable to transfer other personnel who face the threat of the paramilitary? I would like the Minister to answer that question now so that I can take the answer back to the people who work in the military installations in my constituency. What is the difference between the security implications for a Minister or his home, and the implications for highly sensitive military bases? By his failure to answer that question, the Minister underlines both the paucity and the danger of his proposals.
      Another inconsistency has developed since the Committee has been in business. For reasons well known to all of us, in some parts of the United Kingdom services will not be put out to competitive tender. The Minister denies that at his peril. If that is acceptable, why is it not acceptable for services involving military installations and security bases not to be put out at all? The Minister must explain that inconsistency tonight. I have to tell my constituents that PSA work services in certain parts of the United Kingdom will not go out to tender. However, they will go out at Faslane and at the Clyde submarine base because the Minister does not believe that the Clyde submarine base is a sufficiently high security service for it not to go out to tender. That is the only conclusion that I can draw from the Government's inconsistency. I hope that the Minister can at least smooth out that manifest inconsistency.
      The Minister has shown that he cares little for the 200 or 300 jobs that will be lost in Scotland or for the 1,000 jobs that will be lost throughout the United Kingdom. I

      83
      can conclude only that by privatising the PSA the Minister may save some money. However, will he save lives at the bases that are affected? The Minister is being reckless by pursuing the privatisation proposal. He has not fully thought out the proposal and he does not have the full agreement of the security forces. He is jeopardising the lives of the service personnel in our United Kingdom bases. He should be ashamed about that, and that is why we will press the amendment.
      8 pm
      Mr. Livsey: The amendment is very important because the privatisation of the PSA will have considerable security implications. The PSA designs and maintains sensitive security sites such as RAF Fylingdales, GCHQ and, as has already been stated, the nuclear submarine base at Faslane. Therefore, PSA staff are vetted for those purposes and are also subjected to the Official Secrets Act 1911. The PSA also security vets every contractor working on a Government site and nearly one employee in 10 is rejected by that vetting. Vetting is expensive and time consuming and the whole procedure may be put in jeopardy because of the thrust towards privatisation in which profit may overtake security implications.
      The American and West German Governments have already informed our Government that they will work only through British civil servants for design and maintenance on their military sites for which the PSA works. I understand that there are 500 civil servants in Germany looking after the building and maintenance of military installations. If the West German Government believe that they should remain in place because of the security implications, that is an important consideration. The West German and American Governments oppose privatisation. Will the Minister tell us what feedback he has had in his discussions with those Governments?
      Will the Minister name any other countries in which the functions that we are discussing tonight are privatised? Other countries are not prepared to privatise such work. Ministers have also decided that security work on Cabinet Ministers' homes and their own homes will not be privatised while work on military and married quarters will be.
      Recent tragic events have shown that the homes of military personnel are as vulnerable to terrorist attack as ministerial residences. If the privatisation of the PSA poses no security threat, why are Ministers' residences excluded from the privatisation plans? There is an inconsistency there which the Minister must answer. That is one of the reasons why my party will oppose the Bill tonight. We have not been satisfied by any of the assurances that the Minister has given about security.
      Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The question of security has taxed the patience of this House for many years. Lapses of security have always created a sense of anger and sometimes frustration when we have not been able to get explanations from the Government—and by Government I mean Governments of all political persuasions. Security is a subject which in some form touches us all. However, whenever we show an interest in how to deal with it and how to put our views to the
      84
      authorities about how security could be enhanced and ringfenced to provide the highest levels of public confidence, we are treated at arm's length.
      The Bill is small, but it affects many people. When we discussed new clause 1 we were not satisfied that certain things such as empire building in the Departments—under the heading of replication—would not occur. Also we have heard nothing that persuades us of the case for privatisation.
      The Government may have an argument on privatisation and security. They may be able to say that large areas of private enterprise deal with sensitive security matters where there are no problems. The Government may be justified in claiming in those cases that there are satisfactorily ringfenced and regulated accountability conditions so there is a higher level of support for work to be placed in the private sector than in the public sector. Very often there are unfortunate lapses in the public sector. However, that is not a good argument.
      My colleagues have already said that an outstanding disparity follows the unfortunate reasoning behind the privatisation proposal. Why will we exclude Ministers' houses from the proposal? Why should it be a logical conclusion that what is good for Ministers' houses is not good enough for other properties? In many cases people are more in the front line of danger than Ministers.
      I remember being very worried when I was a young officer in the last war. Over the years since then I have pondered about how silly it is for us to send young boys of only 17½ and 18 to Ireland. They do not even know where the enemy is. That is an example of people at the sharp end of the problem who are in danger.
      I do not want to underestimate the importance of the work of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because his is a very dangerous job. However, he is guarded every moment of the day. Therefore, the Bill falls short. We are treating Ministers differently. That cannot be logical.
      Mr. Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when he describes Ministers, he should also refer to former Ministers, some of whom are his colleagues?
      Mr. Leadbitter: Some of them are so long past that I often have a sneaking suspicion that they enjoy their security too much to allow it to wither away. Nevertheless, one does not want to be too critical about dangerous situations. We must act responsibly.
      Is there a case for privatisation? To put it another way, when we have satisfactory security in defence programmes throughout the United Kingdom, will we put security at risk if we privatise security at defence installations? That is a very good question, and the Minister should be able to answer it. The issue is not party political. Hon. Members have a common interest. We want to know whether, although there is a case for responding reasonably to high standards of security in the private sector, there is a case for widening it and, therefore, possibly weakening it.
      There has been ample time for consultation. What representations has the Minister received from security officers and from representatives of the PSA? Have they indicated any concern, and has the Minister responded to them? Hon. Members may be more confident if the Minister is able to tell the House that consultations have

      85
      satisfied him and, therefore, that they should satisfy us. I suspect that he will not be able to tell us that with any confidence.
      Mr. Soley: This has been an important debate. Hon. Members may recall that this subject was important also on Second Reading and in Committee. As I said on Second Reading, the Government have not thought through the consequences of their actions in privatising the PSA and the Crown Suppliers. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) has moved amendment No. 2 dealing with security. Amendment No. 4 would exclude Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. On Second Reading, I said that the Bill would allow paramilitaries operating out of Northern Ireland to have greater opportunities for terrorism in this country and in Northern Ireland and for raising money in Northern Ireland.
      One of the best speeches in Committee was made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on behalf of the SDLP in Northern Ireland. He pointed out what and other Committee Members have known for all too long, which is that paramilitary groups on both sides—Unionist and Republican—obtain significant sums of money from threats and extortion. The most vulnerable groups include the private building sector and related organisations. The hon. Member for South Down pointed out that it is well known in the Province that 20 per cent. is usually added to the cost of a contract, and that sum is passed on to paramilitary groups.
      8.15 pm
      If hon. Members are satisfied with that, it would be a shame. They cannot be satisfied. If we include Northern Ireland in the scope of the Bill, and we privatise several organisations, there will be the real danger that funding for paramilitary groups will be increased. I put it no higher than that. I do not expect the Government to say how they have adequately coped with that. However, on Second Reading, it was clear that they had not thought about the consequences. In Committee, it was clear that the Minister did not know all the answers. Perhaps one should not expect him to do so, because the information is particularly sensitive, but I have no reason to believe that adequate thought has been given to how to proceed with the privatisation.
      When a service in Northern Ireland is privatised, company directors are threatened that, if they take on Crown contracts, they or their work force may be shot. That is precisely what happens there—they are shot. Several people have been shot in the past few months. If the Government have got this wrong, it is literally a fatal warning to people in Northern Ireland. I would much prefer that this matter is kept out of the Bill so that we do not create that possibility.
      If we are satisfied with present security—the Government are always telling us that they are doing everything possible to improve and maintain security—surely we should not be changing the practice. If they think that this measure will improve security, surely they can say so. They have not said whether it will improve security or make it worse. The most that we have had is an indication that, somehow or other, the measure will not do an) damage. It is deeply disturbing that the Government's policy is not well thought out.
      86
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, who was ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), referred to Ministers' cars and homes. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton and I challenged the Minister on the privatisation of the car driving service and the security of people's homes and the exclusion of Ministers' cars and homes. The Minister said:
      "The hon. Member for Linlithgow knows that a review was carried out in 1988 after the announcement of our intention to privatise the Crown Suppliers. That review concluded that the ministerial car service and some of the Crown Supplier's work on security furniture and equipment should be retained within Government. The reason in the first case was the nature of the terrorist threat to Ministers. In the second case, security considerations argued against delegating to a private firm either the design and development work of the Crown Suppliers security branch or their work in choosing and approving manufacturers."
      The House should note those final words:
      "choosing and approving manufacturers."
      The Minister has just intervened to respond to the argument about why Ministers' cars and their home security were excluded from the provisions. His defence was, incredibly, that it was all right because it applied to Ministers of both parties, from this Government and from previous Governments. That is unacceptable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton said, that will not apply to service men's families or homes or to a number of senior civil servants who are at least as much at risk—and in some cases more at risk—from terrorists than Ministers. According to the Minister in Committee, the security is necessary for Ministers, so why is it not also necessary for senior civil servants and the families of service personnel, who are at least as much at risk?
      I repeat what I said on Second Reading. The Labour party is not prepared to accept a second class of security for civil servants or for service men or their families compared with that offered to Ministers, whether they are Labour or Tory Ministers, past or present. That argument is unacceptable to us and it should be unacceptable to all hon. Members.
      The first time that a senior civil servant or a member of the armed forces or one of their families is killed or seriously injured as a result of a second-class service., the responsibility will be on those who have supported the Government on this Bill. The position is that serious. That is why the Opposition are so opposed to the Bill and that is why we are now seeking to exclude Northern Ireland from the provisions and exclude the security group of the Property Services Agency and its related design facilities.
      Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend must convey distinctly and clearly that the lesson is that if the Government cannot show that their proposals do not put security at risk, they should not put them into practice.
      Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sadly, he did not serve on the Standing Committee with us; his expertise and knowledge would have been useful. The tragedy is that, over and over again, the most that the Minister has been able to tell us is that he does not think that there is a risk. That is not sufficient. As I have already said, if the Government were to suggest that by keeping Northern Ireland on the face of the Bill—in other words, including privatisation provisions for Northern Ireland—security in Northern Ireland would be improved, it is probable that we should have to accept that as the Government's judgment because, although we cannot ask

      87
      for evidence on the Floor of the House, at least we would have something to work on. However, the Government will not say that. They simply say that, in their judgment, the provisions will not make security any worse.
      As I have already said, the hon. Member for South Down, who lives in Northern Ireland and knows the scene there and who put the case so forcefully and so well in Committee, has not yet had the response that he deserves to his serious speech.
      Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, the issue of Ministers' cars and homes is the clinching argument. If, according to the Minister's own words, this level of security is so necessary for Ministers of the Crown, why is it not necessary for civil servants or for armed service men and their families? Either security for Ministers is better, in which case we should bring everyone's security up to that level, or it is worse, in which case we should improve security for Ministers. The Minister's statement in Committee was clear. He said specifically that the facility should not be privatised for security reasons. Therefore, one assumes that that is because the PSA offers a higher standard than could be achieved in the private sector. If that is the argument—and it must be the only argument unless the Minister has any other suggestions—its logic should also apply to senior civil servants and to members of the armed forces and their families. There should not be a second-class standard or second-class delivery of security services for such people. That is the force of our argument and we should believe that it is a powerful argument.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton made some extremely important comments. When considering the design of military bases in this country, we must also consider not only what happens on the base itself, but the perimeter security and everything that goes with that in terms of the people who enter the base to work on it. If my memory serves me right, it was the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) who said in Committee that it was quite normal for outside contractors to go on to United States or German bases to provide, for example, fast-food outlets. We know that. But I shall refer again to his exact words in Committee. Although I have already quoted this passage, I emphasise the words at the end. The Minister referred to
      "the design and development work of the Crown Suppliers security branch or their work in choosing and approving manufacturers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 11 January 1990; c. 84.]
      What is going to happen when a company is chosen to do some work at Faslane, Aldermaston or one of the other bases in this country? At the moment the PSA has some say about which company should carry out the work and takes into account security factors and the people who work for the company, to the extent that one in 10 of all employees are excluded on security grounds. Although we are told that that system will end, the Government's secret argument is, "Ah but, it will not disappear because we shall transfer it to the relevant Department. It could be transferred to, for example, the Ministry of Defence."
      Although we are also told that there will not be any mini-PSAs, in fact, that is exactly what we shall have. Presumably, the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office, the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and a number of other key Ministries will all
      88
      have their own mini-PSAs for security work. The alternative is to keep the whole thing as a national body, in which case why are we privatising it? Why do the Government not say, "We accept the two amendments, one excluding Northern Ireland and the other excluding the security group and its related work"? I can well understand that the Minister may keep the security group out of the privatisation, but I am concerned about the related security work.
      Let us consider the lighting that is necessary on the perimeters of secure establishments. The design, location and the lighting itself are the work of the PSA and can be crucial. Experimental work is carried out into the anti-blast properties of the materials that are used in the homes of, for example, service men's families, senior civil servants, Ministers and at military installations in general. That work is not only controlled and supervised by the PSA, but carried out by the PSA itself in many instances. However, much of the work is now to be carried out either by in-house PSA in the relevant Ministry or by a private contractor.
      The problem does not stop there. Let us consider Broadmoor and Britain's prisons. Again, the work of the PSA is essential to security. That is why I want to make it clear that, leaving aside the amendment covering Northern Ireland, we are raising the full range of security issues that are affected, in relation not only to terrorism or defence, but to all the secure establishments that are necessary in our society.
      I repeat for the third or fourth time that the Opposition do not expect the Minister to give us details of the security thinking or of the discussions that have taken place. However, if the Minister cannot explain his comments when he said that for security reasons it is necessary not to privatise Ministers' cars and the design, selection and approval of their manufacturers, he should explain why that is necessary for other areas and for other groups of people, such as civil servants. If he is not going to privatise any of those categories, he must address the argument about the mini-PSAs and tell us whether there will be a national group.
      The Minister should be able to say categorically that if the Bill is to apply to Northern Ireland, in the judgment of the Government it will improve the security position there. If the Government cannot make that statement, it will not be enough to say that the Bill will make no difference. All the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down about the activities of paramilitaries and all that we know about threats to employers and companies that do Crown work show that the Bill would risk making the position worse. The Opposition believe that that risk is not worth taking.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Warren: Many of the matters about which I was going to voice concern have already been raised by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), with whom I share considerable anxiety about security.
      If I had been on the Standing Committee, I should have tried to obtain more detail than seems to have been obtained—but from what I have read of the report of the Committee, I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some reassurances.
      I am worried about a particular matter. The unions have drawn the attention of the House to the dangers that they regard as inherent in what they call the Trojan horse

      89
      of allowing repairs and maintenance to be done by sub-contractors who are not covered by security clearance when the work requires clearance.
      As Opposition Members said, we do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to describe in public the security arrangements of those who need the cover of security. Nor do I believe that all Members of Parliament are at risk from terrorist attack. We must take our own precautions according to what is required. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the House that those who require the cover of security for repair and maintenance work to their property or transport will continue to receive it. If the chauffeur service is not to be privatised, what about security clearance of those who carry out repairs and maintenance on the vehicles? What about unknown contractors who carry out repairs and maintenance work in the homes of civil servants? In Northern Ireland civil servants carry out everyday duties which here on the mainland are regarded as straightforward, but which carry an inherent risk there because the nature of those duties is considered by terrorists to be contrary to what they stupidly deploy as their views.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the matter does not divide the House but unites it. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he replies.
      Mr. Chope: I give an absolute assurance to every hon. Member who has spoken and to the House that security is not jeopardised by the Bill one iota. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who opened the debate, expressed anxieties about security. Perhaps I can remind him of the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave to a question tabled by the hon. Gentleman on 6 February. The question was:
      "To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the security of military installations of privatisation of the Property Services Agency."
      My hon. Friend replied:
      "The arrangements for the security of military installations will not be adversely affected by the privatisation of the Property Services Agency."—[Official Report, 6 February, 1990: Vol 166, c. 593.]
      Opposition Members do not seem prepared to accept that that is the position. I find that a sad reflection on them.
      All aspects of the security of service married quarters will remain the responsibility of the relevant armed service and will continue to be taken seriously. Up to now the PSA has acted as the agent of the Ministry of Defence for the construction and maintenance of married quarters and other service buildings. It will continue to do so in future. The PSA and the many civilian contractors that it already uses are subject to the general and local security arrangements in force at the time. The privatisation of the PSA will not affect such arrangements in any way. All security matters will remain the responsibility of the appropriate service commander. Therefore, it is absolute nonsense for Opposition Members to suggest that a double standard is being applied. Security is provided with a single standard for the whole of Government business.
      In Committee, the Government were guided by the advice that they received on security matters. When we were considering the details of the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers and deciding which parts of it should be privatised, we were guided by that advice. I assured the Committee, and I assure the House today, that we shall accept the advice tendered. The advice tendered on the ministerial car service was that it should not be privatised.
      90
      Although I know that some of my colleagues and some Opposition Members feel that it would be perfectly reasonable to privatise the service, we shall not privatise it because our advisers tell us that it would be wrong to do so on security grounds. That shows that the Government regard the issue of security as of paramount importance.
      Mr. Soley: Were the security services consulted about the risk of privatising the PSA where it affects the security of service men and their families and civil servants? If so, what did they advise?
      Mr. Chope: Private companies are already involved in the security of, for example, Ministers' residences. The hon. Gentleman and others have suggested that virtually all Ministers have security at their residence. The House will know that only a few Ministers have security precautions at their residence. Those who have security arrangements have them because of the position that they hold or have held. That includes former Ministers from both sides of the House.
      Mr. Soley: My question was about a matter on which the advice was clear. The Government were told not to privatise security for Ministers' cars and homes. I am asking whether advice was requested on the security of service men and their families and civil servants. If so, what was the answer? Was it that it was OK to privatise that service because it was not a security risk? If so, what was the difference?
      Mr. Chope: There is no difference. The present arrangements for Ministry of Defence establishments and employees will apply in the future. The arrangement is that Ministers and, where necessary, senior officials and service men on official business all have access to secure forms of official transport, either civilian or military, as their duties require. That is the position now and will be the position in future.
      Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister must bear it in mind that the House will not be critical of the advisers to whom he must listen. However, the House must consider the history of advisers. Sometimes advice is good and sometimes it is bad. Only experience can tell us that. This matter unites the House. To what extent has consultation with the people affected by the Bill, whose future will be determined by it, and who are worried about the security services, supported the advice that the Minister has been given?
      Mr. Chope: We have completed the consultation on privatisation of the Crown Suppliers. The process has been carried out to the satisfaction of all parties. I am sure that the same will be true of the privatisation of the PSA. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) is aware that the PSA is not to be privatised until the second half of 1992. At this stage the finer details of security matters have not been worked out. That is why I give the assurance that the Government will listen to and follow the advice that they receive on those matters and will not put security at risk in any way. I hope that that will be acceptable to the House.
      Mr. McFall: The Minister said that ministerial cars and homes, and civil servants' homes, will not be subject to tendering. Is he telling us that politicians and civil servants face a greater threat and that their security interests are

      91
      more paramount than those of military personnel and their families, and military installations? That is the only deduction that we can make. Is that the case?
      Mr. Chope: That is not the case. The Government accept the advice that they are given by their security advisers. The Ministry of Defence listens to security advice and decides how to act on it in relation to its serving personnel and their dependants. Likewise, the Government listen to security advice and act on it in relation to the protection of Ministers and former Ministers. I am sure that most people would accept that that is a reasonable way to proceed. The Government do not second-guess security advice; they receive advice and act on it. That is a responsible way to behave.
      Mr. Soley: I wish to pursue this on a further intervention because the matter is extremely important. The PSA and the Crown Suppliers operate across a wide range of services. Two of the Government-appointed bodies that reported said that privatisation should not take place. The third report, the only one that dealt with how to privatise, was asked a different question. It was asked not whether privatisation should take place but how it should take place. If the first two reports advised against privatisation, was security one of the reasons for that advice? Given that the Minister made it clear in Committee that all the security work of the Crown Suppliers should not be privatised, is he saying that it will not be privatised, so the Government accept amendment No. 2?
      Mr. Chope: No advice that we received on those earlier reports was directed towards the issue of security, but one report mentioned security in relation to the Government car service. The advice was that the service should not be privatised on security grounds. I am sure that it comforts the hon. Gentleman to know that the Government are following that advice.
      Mr. Soley: I apologise to the Minister for intervening before he has answered my second question. What troubles me about that is that it suggests that the Turton report and the second Government-appointed group took account of only the Government side of the work and not the wide range of work beyond that. The least that the Government should be able to tell us is that the security implications of the Bill across the whole range of work, including prisons and special hospitals for the security services or the relevant group of police who deal with these matters, were given detailed consideration.
      Mr. Chope: Perhaps I can come to those issues. Certainly I can deal with the point about the amendment and why it is not acceptable to the Government, and the extent to which the Government accept the spirit behind it.
      The intention behind the amendment is to prevent the PSA from undertaking security sensitive work once it is in the private sector. The effect would be to make a clumsy impracticable and unnecessary division of the work undertaken by the PSA, between that included in a scheme in clause 1 and that retained in Government. The amendment is clumsy and impracticable because it assumes that there are clear distinctions between management of security sensitive and non-security
      92
      sensitive work. That is not the case. In most areas, the work contains a mixture of both. That is why the amendment is unacceptable.
      More than two thirds of the PSA's new construction and maintenance programme is for the Ministry of Defence. The PSA is currently responsible for the project management, oversight and design of the facilities for the Trident submarine base at Coulport, Faslane and Rosyth. It manages the maintenance of all the front-line operational RAF and USAF air bases in the United Kingdom. It is the agent for arranging the construction and maintenance of barracks and married quarters for the British Army in the United Kingdom and overseas.
      8.45 pm
      On the civil side, the PSA has responsibilities that include overseeing the design and building of new high security prisons for the Home Office. It is also responsible for works services at Buckingham palace, Windsor castle, the Palace of Westminster and No. 10 Downing street. It maintains buildings and services at GCHQ in Cheltenham.
      Although the PSA manages all those works, that does not imply that it is responsible now for determining security requirements. It is the responsibility of the client Department to assess the level and nature of the threat to its various facilities and to decide what type of protection is needed. That is true, for example, of the weapon resistance of hardened aircraft shelters and the physical protection of individual Government buildings. The PSA's task is to take the requirements specified by the client and arrange to design facilities that meet those requirements.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Minister says that the PSA is responsible for No. 10 Downing street. Will he confirm that on 24 January the Prime Minister went to the Tate gallery to see its £1 million revamp and said of the gallery management:
      "I know, because they have told me, that since they didn't have to go to the PSA they have got a lot more value out of the money they've had. And, of course, I must tell you we have found the same in No. 10 Downing Street"?
      Does the Minister share the Prime Minister's criticisms of what happened at No. 10 Downing street?
      Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend was commenting on the benefits of untying, which allow customers to decide what they want and where to get it. In effect, it gives customers choice. My right hon. Friend and I are in favour of choice and I hope that the House supports the Government on that.
      Mr. Dalyell: Before a Prime Minister says such a thing, what cost comparisons are made between PSA work at Downing street and that which would be done by private firms?
      Mr. Chope: I cannot go into the details of particular cases. The principle is that it should be for individual clients to decide whether they wish to use the PSA and then to invite quotations from those who may wish to tender. Following the financial management initiative, I am sure that this is becoming common practice throughout Whitehall and that as a result the Government are obtaining better value for money.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) was worried about clients' responsibility for security clearances of staff and contractors. To ensure that sensitive information does not get into the wrong hands, the PSA, like all Government Departments and private

      93
      sector contractors, for example, in defence procurement, has arrangements for its staff to be security cleared. More rigorous clearances are required for the most sensitive work. There is a wide range of private sector consultants who, for many years, have been carrying out many aspects of design on sensitive projects under the PSA's overall direction. For example, almost all the work of construction, other than small scale maintenance jobs, is done by private contractors. The main radioactive liquid treatment plant at Aldermaston and the floating jetty for Trident submarines at Coulport have been designed by the private sector. All the staff involved were appropriately security cleared. No security distinction is made between a design done by secure consultants and that done by civil servants.
      The PSA does certain types of design, such as prisons or airfield pavements, with its own staff rather than with consultants because, over time, it has developed those areas as specialisms, not because the design has been kept in-house for security reasons.
      In answer to my hon. Friend, when the PSA is privatised it will be in the same position as the consultants with whom it will compete for work and its staff will be vetted in the same way as are the staff of the present consultants. Decisions about clearance requirements will turn on the nature of the work that the PSA wins or the arrangements that its Government customers demand, since it is the client, and not the consultant, that settles the security regime to be followed.
      As I said earlier, although the vast majority of the PSA's current work is such that we are confident that privatisation will have no deleterious effect on security, there are exceptions to that. There is the remaining very small proportion of work that will be retained within Government. In the case of the Crown Suppliers, a review that we carried out in 1988 concluded that some of the Crown Suppliers' work should be retained within Government. In the case of the PSA, there are one or two areas where more work needs to be done before final decisions are taken about precisely which activities should be retained in Government. The security and privacy of Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family will be an essential consideration. Other activities concern specialised work at very sensitive facilities, including the development, installation and maintenance of high security equipment that the PSA carries out for a range of Government clients.
      Discussions are currently taking place with all the interested parties in Government to decide how those functions should be handled in the future. But the privatisation of the PSA cannot take place before late 1992, so there is adequate time to make sure that we take the right decisions. If it is necessary, as it may well be, to retain specific functions in Government to preserve security, we shall certainly do so. I can assure the House of that.
      The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) raised the issue of United States forces. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the building work managed by the PSA, with few exceptions, is undertaken by private sector building contractors, which have far more men on site at any one time than the PSA has. The United States air force has no general security bar on the use of private contractors on its bases in relation to the sort of services that the PSA provides. Indeed, it has private contractors on its bases for a number of purposes. I know that on one
      94
      base it has a private sector security agent as well. Following privatisation, the PSA will be in the same position as are the other private sector companies on those bases.
      The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) referred to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, security is the responsibility of the customer who commissions the work, rather than of the PSA. The PSA undertakes work in Northern Ireland that is not related to the security services. For example, it works for Northern Ireland Departments, such as the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture, and it maintains Hillsborough castle. Those who have been to the castle recently have been much impressed by the work that the PSA has done there. It also works for the Inland Revenue and for Customs and Excise, and in the new competitive world that it now faces it could well offer very attractive services in areas in which it has skills and resources.
      The purpose of clause 6(2) is to allow the PSA's organisation and facilities in Northern Ireland to be included in the privatisation. They represent a sizeable slice of the PSA's business, and Northern Ireland offers an important area of the United Kingdom where the company could seek to expand its markets.
      Mr. O'Brien: Do I take it that the Northern Ireland Office, like the other Departments, will have its personnel—accountants, consultants, architects, the people who oversee the work—in place? Will the Northern Ireland Office have in post the same type of people as other Departments have in post?
      Mr. Chope: The Northern Ireland Office will have in post the people who are necessary. For example, the Hillsborough castle project is under the auspices of the Northern Ireland Office. That Department has a project sponsorship role. The principles that apply to the Northern Ireland Office will be the same as those that apply to other Government Departments.
      Mr. McFall: The Minister says that the same principles will apply. Does that mean that, in Northern Ireland, works services will be put out to competitive tender, as happens in other parts of the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Chope: The details of how works services in Northern Ireland are dealt with have not yet been finalised. In his earlier remarks the hon. Gentleman jumped to a conclusion. No final decision has been taken about the way in which works services in Northern Ireland are to be dealt with. Obviously, security will be paramount.
      Mr. Soley: When the PSA is privatised, the people in Northern Ireland who work for it will cease to be civil servants. At present any civil servant who comes under a serious death threat in Northern Ireland can be moved, not just from his home, but to a totally different job elsewhere. When the PSA is in the private sector, what safeguard will there be?
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if there were no private sector people working in Northern Ireland at present. Certainly the PSA people who work in Northern Ireland whom I have met, despite the threats under which they operate—and let us not kid ourselves: there are threats against PSA personnel in Northern Ireland, just as

      95
      there are threats against other people there—enjoy working in Northern Ireland and wish to continue doing so. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, whether they are in the private sector or in the public sector.
      Mr. Soley: I am sure that those people enjoy working in Northern Ireland. They are also very brave. But the Minister is avoiding the question. The situation is that if one comes under a death threat, one can be moved from one's house. One can be moved to a Civil Service job elsewhere, even in another part of the United Kingdom. How could that happen if the organisation were in the private sector? In the private sector at the moment, one can be shot. Often, as happened very recently—it was reported in the press—companies withdraw from contracts. Are we going down that road? I want to know. When those people cease to be civil servants, and end up in the private sector, will they simply withdraw from the contract if they are threatened, or will there be arrangements to move them as if they were still civil servants?
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions and is overstating his case. Indeed, he is doing so in a rather irresponsible way.
      Mr. Soley: I do not accept that. Both I and the Secretary of State have had experience of the problems of Northern Ireland. I should be quite happy if the Secretary of State were to have a word with the Minister about this matter. We know that what I have just said is factually correct in every detail. I appreciate that the Minister may not have been told what the process is, but somebody somewhere must have given this matter some thought.
      Mr. Chope: I do not think that it would be appropriate this evening to go into the details of what happens at present when such a situation arises in the private sector.
      Mr. Soley: We know what happens.
      Mr. Chope: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed as to exactly what happens at present, as to the arrangements in particular circumstances when this occurs in the private sector. I do not think that it would be helpful to go into that tonight. Obviously, such considerations are very much in the forefront of the Government's mind in deciding what to do about privatisation of the PSA in the context of Northern Ireland. I do not think that the security of any individual in the PSA will be affected adversely by the arrangements.
      Mr. McFall: The Minister has said that we are jumping to conclusions, but he is misleading the House, or talking ignorance. From public documents I can tell the Minister that works services will not be put out to competitive tender. I challenge the Minister on that point.
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is making assertions and challenges, but I think that he is referring to a study that is now under way. The question is whether, initially, maintenance and minor works services will be put out to tender. In the first instance it is for the Ministry of Defence to consider the extent to which it will be involved in market testing. To my knowledge, no final decision has yet been taken on the matter and I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to speculation and studies that are now being undertaken. Ultimately, it will be for the MOD to decide
      96
      how it will procure its works and maintenance in Northern Ireland. I assure the House that a decision has already been taken in principle that there will be competition for all major new works in Northern Ireland.
      9 pm
      To identify within legislation the security group as the part of the PSA to be retained within Government would be an imprecise and blunt instrument of administration. Currently some activities outside that group, such as emergency planning, may need to be retained within Government. Equally the review currently in progress may identify work that could readily be undertaken within the private sector.
      All those issues are being reviewed and I hope that Opposition Members will accept that we treat seriously the question of where certain security activities should rest. Hon. Members will be aware that we brought into the PSA certain secure activities from the Crown Suppliers, which we thought were unsuitable within the private sector. Those and other activities in turn are likely to transfer to Property Holdings or elsewhere within Government.
      I assure the House, as I did the Committee, that nothing will be done under the Bill that is against security advice. Security advice was taken in deciding those parts of the Crown Suppliers which are to be privatised and those parts which are not. We took decisions fully in accordance with that security advice. I hope that that gives confidence that we shall likewise take decisions fully in accordance with security advice when dealing with the detail of what is or what is not to be privatised in the PSA. Obviously, as privatisation is not due until 1992, there is plenty of time in the interim.
      I hope that I have been able to allay hon. Members' concerns about security and that I have been able to show that the Government take the issue of security extremely seriously. The Bill in no way jeopardises that security.
      Mr. Soley: With the permission of the House, I just wish to place it on record that our concerns have not been allayed, nor are we happy about this. We do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but this is one of the issues on which we shall press for a Division on Third Reading.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 2

      TRANSFERRED STAFF
      Mr. Dalyell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 20 to 24 and insert
      'the transferee shall

      (a) provide pension rights and benefits which are comparable to those presently arising out of the principal Civil Service pension schemes; and

      (b) provide so far as possible, redundancy compensation rights which are identical to those presently arising out of the principal Civil Service pension scheme, and no rights arising by virtue of this subsection shall be regarded as identical unless they are adequately funded and guaranteed.'.

      I move this amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and my other colleagues.
      There is great concern about the issues of the terms of severance.
      On 8 February the Minister wrote to me about matters of policy and administration not covered by the

      97
      Solicitor-General's written replies to questions raised in Committee. In the fourth paragraph of his letter, the Minister stated that a statement of terms of employment would be sent to staff while they were in the employment of the Government-owned company. He went on to say that this statement would then be binding on the purchasers of the shares in the company and would be enforceable against him by the staff.
      How will that statement bind the eventual purchaser?
      Does the Minister agree that the new owner will only be bound by the normal application of the rules of the law of contract?
      Does he agree that the terms referred to may be changed by a new employer giving notice of alteration of those terms?
      Does the Minister agree that in such circumstances the only options available to staff will be to accept the new conditions or refuse to accept them by quitting employment and claiming unfair dismissal?
      Does he agree that the maximum compensation available under such a claim is limited to little more than £14,000? That is not adequate compensation for the loss of severance entitlements which may easily be worth in excess of £100,000.
      The Minister should accept that a new employer who is constrained only by the normal rules of contract law is not bound in relation to terms. He must face up to the fact that the terms are easily changed by the new employer and the arrangements proposed in the third paragraph of his letter do not bind the new employer in any meaningful sense of the word.
      Does the Minister agree that none of the arrangements proposed in the third paragraph of his letter protects the staff in the event of the new company being put into liquidation? In paragraph 4, the Minister says:
      "If the new owner failed to pay the agreed redundancy terms the employee could sue…for breach of contract, and ask for summary judgment. The damages could be quantified because they could be ascertained from the statement of redundancy terms issued to staff."
      In that paragraph the Minister describes one of the few circumstances in which a breach of contract could result in the recovery of damages approximating to severance entitlements. Those circumstances are limited. A redundancy payment would have to be under the terms of a transferred contract that had not been altered by the new employer.
      Does the Minister agree that no prospect of recovering damages exists when no redundancy exists, an employer has given notice to vary the terms and no actual redundancy arises during the course of that notice or when the employer gives no notice to vary redundancy terms and the individual is not affected by redundancy during the period of notice that should have been given?
      Will the Minister admit that a large variety of circumstances could arise in which staff could not take action for damages?
      As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am extremely reluctant to advise any constituent to go to law unless he or she has an absolute cast-iron assurance of legal aid. In the cases that I have described legal aid might not be forthcoming.
      Does the Minister agree that the only sure means to ensure that staff retain a practical course of action for
      98
      damages is by making severance terms a statutory right? In any other case, terms may be varied and staff would have no means of redress except unfair dismissal.
      Does the Minister agree that severance terms are at risk in the private sector? Will he propose some means to minimise that risk? That could be done by the Treasury underwriting the terms, as with the ordnance factories and dockyards, giving staff a statutory right to redundancy terms or setting up some kind of trust fund.
      Does the Minister believe that there are no risks in the private sector? The furniture and furnishings trade is in deep recession at present and the Crown Suppliers is making a loss of £2 million.
      Will the Minister admit that there is a risk that severance terms may not be honoured in the private sector? Where there is such a risk, it is incumbent on the Government to admit that severance pay might be at risk in some circumstances and protect staff when necessary.
      The staff at the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers regard the security of their pensions and their redundancy compensation as crucial. They are alarmed at the Government's refusal to provide any protection other than that contained in the transfer of undertakings in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, about which we had so much to say in Committee. I shall tell the House why.
      This privatisation is unique, in that the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are neither monopolies nor established businesses. Both organisations are Government functions and as such are highly unsuitable for privatisation. The Crown Suppliers prove the point. Its main furnishings activity is in ruins. For 1989, its audited accounts will show a loss of about £9 million.
      So bad are its prospects that the Minister has been begging other Departments to guarantee it work. In particular, he has pleaded with the Ministry of Defence to sign contracts which would have the Crown Suppliers provide exclusively all furnishing needs for the next two years. Without guaranteed work from the Government the management buy-out will lose its financial backing and other prospective purchasers will lose interest. The privatisation would collapse. How rich in irony it is that this Minister, the great advocate of open competition who so loudly has proclaimed that the customer must have the greatest possible choice, has performed a U-turn and is now imploring his fellow Ministers to forgo competition and guarantee the Crown Suppliers work.
      Has the Minister suddenly become worried about what might happen to the Crown Suppliers' staff? The problems of a collapsed privatisation are serious. Guaranteed work over a limited period might satisfy bankers, but it does not satisfy the staff. The staff want a guarantee but of a different kind. They want their redundancy entitlements and their pensions guaranteed against future change imposed by the new owner. If accepted, the amendment would give them just that.
      The Minister has come under great pressure on pensions and redundancy payments from staff and their trade unions. He recently sent me a letter seeking to provide further assurances about redundancy compensation. He said that the purchaser would be required to provide redundancy terms by
      "sending a statement of the terms to the staff while the company in question is in Government ownership. That

      99
      statement would then be binding on the purchasers of the shares in the company and would be enforceable against him by the staff."
      As to the actual payment of redundancy compensation,
      "if the new owner failed to pay the agreed redundancy terms the employee could sue…sfor breach of contract and ask for summary judgment. The damages could be quantified because they could be ascertained from the statement of redundancy terms issued to staff."
      That might sound helpful, but I am advised that the assurances are not worth the paper they are written on, because the new owner can give notice of changes to the redundancy terms from day 1 of the sale and after an extremely short period of notice can then impose new terms.
      The Minister is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. The notion that the letter drafted by the Crown Suppliers privatisation unit provides any meaningful protection is as fanciful as the notion that the Crown Suppliers privatisation unit knew nothing about the Crown Suppliers' extended contracts long before Second Reading of the Bill. The only real protection is through ensuring by statute that redundancy terms and pensions cannot be varied by the new owner without the agreement of staff.
      The Minister has often said that the future for the PSA and the Crown Suppliers is bright. If that is so, the new owner will not be concerned by the amendment.
      9.15 pm
      I must return to the episode with the Prime Minister and Downing street. The Prime Minister cannot think that the future is bright because she virtually guaranteed that it would be rather dim. On 24 January she went to the Tate gallery to see its £1 million revamp and said:
      "I know, because they"—
      the Tate gallery management—
      "have told me, that since they didn't have to go to PSA they have got a lot more value out of the money they've had. And, of course, I must tell you that we have found the same in No. 10 Downing Street."
      That is not exactly a wonderful advertisement for the sale of the PSA; what a kick in the teeth it is for the staff of the PSA. Of course, the Prime Minister was not right. The Tate gallery did not invite the PSA to bid for the work, and No. 10 has had no work undertaken in which a cost comparison between PSA and private firms has been made. The right hon. Lady was wrong, but because she made those remarks, and because her Ministers and civil servants will be forced to make excuses, other Government Departments and potential customers in the private sector will believe her and will be less inclined to go to the PSA.
      The right hon. Lady should admit the truth, and as compensation for the effect of her remarks she should instruct the Minister to agree to guaranteed severance and pensions by accepting this amendment.
      The position on pensions is worse. The Minister has said that he will invite purchasers to provide broadly comparable pensions and that he will insist on it. He has also said that if the purchaser's pension scheme is inferior, the Government Actuary will be asked to assess the difference and to recommend a compensatory amount. However, the amount will not be sufficient to buy a pension equivalent to a Civil Service pension. It will merely be an amount to acknowledge the loss—in other words, to recognise that staff have suffered detriment and it will not compensate staff for the loss.
      100
      The Minister's intention is even nastier. He has said that the Government Actuary will take into account overall differences between the terms that staff now have and those offered by the purchaser. Therefore, if the purchaser offers more pay, a company car or better leave, the Government Actuary will put a value on those extras and deduct it from the compensation. If the new owner withdraws the better conditions soon after the sale, staff will have no entitlement to seek extra compensation from the Government.
      There is no point in the Minister going on about breach of contract. The new owner merely has to give notice of a change, and once that notice has expired he or she is free to impose new terms. Even if the new owner does not give notice, the amount of damages that a court might award would be only the sum of the calculated loss during the notice period. The law is no friend of the employee in this matter.
      The PSA and the Crown Suppliers staff believe that the Minister is prepared to swindle them out of thousands of pounds of hard-earned severance and pensions, and they have said as much in letters to hon. Members and by their actions. Recently the technical staff at the Crown Suppliers were asked whether they wanted to stay with the Crown Suppliers or to take early retirement or redundancy. More than two thirds said that they wanted to get out, but only one third will be allowed to leave.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and I had the privilege of addressing many of the Crown Suppliers staff who came to a rally at the Central hall, in Westminster. There can be no doubt that they are loyal Government employees who feel considerable dissatisfaction. The PSA's employees' unions have skilfully manipulated the Minister to agree to ask the staff whether they want to stay, to move to other posts in the Civil Service, or to take early retirement or redundancy. This preference exercise will take place in March. The exercise is eminently sensible since the Minister is not prepared to play fair with their future conditions of service. However, the Minister, who says that he is a great proponent of free choice, will allow staff to leave only if they are not needed. If they are needed, he and the PSA's new get-rich-quick controllers will force staff to remain. I ask the Minister to tell the House the terms of the preference exercise, and the results when they are known.
      I say bluntly to the House that Ministers are abusing their power. Their actions and intentions are undemocratic, hostile to the work force and add up to a good reason for voting Labour, as 23,000 staff will find when it comes to casting their vote.
      Some of us have, perforce, put a quick legal case. Even if the Bill passes into law, my hon. Friends and I who were on the Committee will use every procedure of the House to monitor what happens to the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency staff. The matter will not go away. The severance terms for loyal staff who have served successive Governments are an absolute disgrace to our society.
      Mr. Warren: My hon. Friend the Minister well knows the many concerns that I have expressed over several months about procedures for the privatisation which, in principle, I support. I hope that he does not think that I am being too hard on him when I say that as this is not the first privatisation by the Government, I would have expected to see a rule book to which he and my right hon. Friend the

      101
      Secretary of State would have had access so that there would not be tumult and concern among so many of my constituents.
      The PSA is the largest single employer in my constituency. Over 1,000 staff work at Ashdown house andmy hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) also has constituents employed by the PSA. All the concerns that have been raised by my constituents could have been alleviated by clear declarations on Second Reading or before about the intention of Government in relation to the future terms and conditions of those employed by PSA after privatisation. There are precedents for that which I am sure are well known. On Second Reading of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said
      "the new company pension scheme … will provide benefits" for transferred employees
      "comparable to those that they currently enjoy, including the continuation of index-linking."—[Official Report,16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c.104.]
      On Report Lord Trefgarne said:
      "the Government have undertaken that the company will provide for transferred employees a pension scheme which is comparable to the Principal Civil Service scheme … the benefits of the scheme will be comparable to those of the principal Civil Service pension scheme and will be index-linked in line with the 1971 Act."—[Official Report, House of Lords,16 October 1984; Vol. 455, c. 954–55.]
      All that could have been made clear at the beginning. I have received many thousands of letters and met many delegations, and people are rightly concerned that having chosen a life in the Civil Service, which included a pension scheme to which they contributed, it should be secure at all times. Doubt has been the source of concern and that has besieged me, quite correctly, as the Member for Hastings and Rye.
      These good people have loyally served the Crown. As the Minister has said, the PSA will not be privatised for two and a half years. Therefore, with three years of anticipation of privatisation I should have thought that an assurance would be in the mind of the Government rather than to allow doubts to dwell and grow.
      I am grateful to Sir Gordon Manzie who, with his senior staff, visited Hasting in December. I pay tribute to him for the many years of loyal service that he gave to the PSA and to the Government service before that. He will be sadly missed. He was probably surprised at the way in which the needs of the employees of the PSA have not been considered in the higher echelons of that organisation. I hope that the Minister will be able to put those doubts to rest once and for all. I was grateful for a letter that I received from him on Friday in which he gave an assurance that I am sure he would like me to quote. He said:
      "On pensions the government has given very firm assurances and is certainly not seeking to escape from its commitment. We have said that the Government will expect staff to be offered arrangements for pensions that are broadly comparable to those they now enjoy. If the purchaser's proposed pension arrangements are different from the PCSPS, then the scheme will be evaluated by the Government Actuary."
      That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Minister continued:
      "If he concludes that it is not broadly comparable, the Government will seek in negotiation to improve the pension terms, or to compensate in some other way, for example by improving other terms and conditions of employment.
      102
      Finally, but only if all those routes proved impossible, the Government would compensate the staff for any remaining pensions disadvantage."
      I am delighted to hear that, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, that could have been made clear from the start. I hope that he will clear up those doubts and offer a commitment that can be included in the Bill to show that the Government accept their duty.
      My second point—and I trust that I will not deviate from the amendment on redundancy and compensation rights—is about the future employment of staff. It has been said that this privatisation is three years away. A letter was circulated to Government Departments by the PSA suggesting that up to 800 staff of the establishment of 1,200 in Hastings would lose their jobs because it could not be foreseen what work they would do. That was the essence of that letter—I have not been privy to a sight of it—and it got back to the employees in some form or another. Two thirds of the people in that establishment believed that their jobs would be wiped out, yet that wiping out was many years away.
      These people are loyal civil servants. I cannot speak for all of them, but they probably want to remain civil servants. Some of them are mobile, but some are not. Their future should have been made clear to them, rather than it having to be left to their Member of Parliament, who is eager to represent their interests, to say, "What will you do about these 800 people who will lose their jobs?"
      The canvassing for job replacement should have begun much earlier. If 800 of the 1,200 staff were thought likely to lose their jobs, one wonders who will do the work that they have been doing. I have been reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister, who has told me in the past week that the efforts to attract other Government work to Hastings are starting to bear fruit. I am delighted to be able to report to the House that he has said that Customs and Excise has confirmed that it expects to open a new VAT office in Ashdown house, Hastings in the autumn and that he will maintain pressure onotherGovernment Departments.
      Good employer-employee relationships rely on employees expecting their employer—and in this case it will be the Government for the next two and a half years—to put loyalty to the employee first and foremost.
      I have made clear that my constituent's concerns can be laid to rest by the Minister, and I trust that he will not fail to do so.
      Mr. Livsey: The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) gave one of the main reasons why we cannot support the Bill. The PSA has 21,000 employees, and national estimates show that up to half of them could lose their jobs.
      Amendment No. 3 at least provides pension rights and benefits comparable to those under the principal Civil Service pension scheme. During the privatisations of the royal ordnance factories and the royal dockyards, concrete assurances were given in the House and in the other place that such rights would be offered to the satisfaction of employees. Why cannot the Government offer the employees of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers the same guarantees? That does not seem unreasonable.
      The other part of the amendment, which refers to
      "redundancy compensation rights which are identical to those presently arising out of the principal Civil Service pension scheme",
      is also essential.

      103
      We are asking for common decency in the treatment of these employees. Ministers have not given employees the cast-iron guarantees that we would want to be provided. The amendment provides a minimum requirement, so it is not asking a great deal. Employees deserve that provision. They are loyal civil servants who have carried out their tasks and who are prepared to change their type of work and even to work in different places as needs be. It will be poor recompense if, in two and a half years when the PSA may be privatised, they do not have a just pension or redundancy scheme. We are asking for the minimum and the Minister should respond positively to our demands.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Michael Stern: One would not think from the contributions of the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that the detailed assurances that they rightly seek on behalf of existing employees of PSA and the Crown Suppliers were given and discussed in great detail by my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee. They are asking for direct repetition of what was said in Committee, but the amendment goes further and asks us to quantify the unquantifiable.
      We have heard from the hon. Member for Linlithgow something that started and expanded in Committee. He attempted—I do not think that he will wish to dissociate himself wholly from this charge—to talk down the business of the Crown Suppliers, and I use that as an example. No reliable figures are available yet, but when the supposed loss of the Crown Suppliers was first mentioned in Committee it was estimated to be £1 million. We have heard tonight that it is £9 million. We have heard tonight that the supposed redundancies among employees of the Crown Suppliers and PSA have risen from one third to one half of the work force. Such exercises by the Opposition may well be advisable politically, but they do no favours to the staff and the future of those organisations.
      I should like to refer to one aspect that makes the amendment look even more out of line. Let us forget its exact wording. I gently chide those Opposition Front-Bench Members who tabled the amendment. We are dealing not with an amendment in Committee tabled for discussion purposes but with an amendment to a Bill that will soon leave the House for another place as a legislative proposal. We owe it to the other place and to our constituents to ensure that such legislation is workable, yet paragraph (b) states that it will be a matter of law to
      "provide pension rights and benefits which are comparable to those presently arising".
      Apples and pears are comparable, but comparison does not have great meaning. I am not sure that it does the Opposition any credit to propose words so loosely chosen as to be meaningless. The media tell us that the Opposition have ambitions one day to form a Government. All I can say is that if that is the sort of law that they are going to propose they are clearly a long way from enabling us to take their ambition with any seriousness.
      As we said in Commitee, what the amendment asks is impossible to implement and, in many instances, undesirable. I would not wish any married woman, divorcee or recent widow to be forced to accept the pension scheme standards currently operating in the Civil Service, and the amendment would make matters even
      104
      worse by leaving the Government free to determine which Civil Service pension scheme should be used for the purpose of comparison.
      Any pension scheme represents a compromise between the rights of different employees at different stages in their careers. In any scheme some classes of employee will do well and some badly. Surely it is right for us to adopt the Government's approach and offer employees an overall valuation of any alternative pension that is offered, with compensation where necessary, rather than laying down a rigid rule that would ensure that those who do badly under the present pension scheme also do badly under any future scheme.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) may well be right in saying that the amendment is not ideally worded; I am not a lawyer, so I do not know. What I do know is that I wish that the amendment has been part of the original Bill. It could then have been amended in Committee according to my hon. Friend's wishes and with all the details that he requires, and we would have known whether we were talking about apples or pears.
      Failing that, I wish that this had been a Government rather than an Opposition amendment. Despite my hon. Friend's comment that firm assurances have been given at each stage of the Bill, the fact is that PSA staff in my constituency—and, I am sure, elsewhere—are not convinced of the adequacy of the assurances that they have been given. I say that as a supporter of the principle of the Bill: I have told my PSA constituents that I consider it good and sensible.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to whose contribution I listened very carefully, said that he could draw on examples that suggest that the PSA does not necessarily offer the best value for money. I am not sure whether his examples are well chosen, although I assume that he has chosen them with his customary care. I have suggested to the PSA employees in my constituency that there are advantages in being in the private sector, where the pressures of competition will ensure that the new firm offers a service that gives value for money, but they remain concerned about their redundancy payments and pension rights.
      The Minister—who is a not-too-distant neighbour of mine—will probably know one reason why that is particularly true in Portsmouth, where many employees are experiencing privatisation for the second time, having been employed in the royal naval dockyard. They have every reason to say not only that for the second time in a supposedly secure Civil Service lifetime they have been faced with upheaval, but that on the first occasion they were given clear assurances about the establishment and guaranteeing of their future. This time, for some reason, the Government's promises have been wrapped up in jargon that they do not understand.
      I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister when he replies to recognise that for good or ill there are employees—loyal civil servants—who are greatly concerned about the future of their redundancy payments if they become redundant. The trouble is that none of those employees know whether they will be made redundant. Neither are they aware whether they will be allowed to take early retirement. They are also not aware of what pension conditions will apply if they remain with the privatised company. No wonder they are worried.

      105
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said, perhaps assurances have been given. However, the assurances that I have read would not allow me to say to my constituents, "Look at that. There's the answer. Go away and don't worry." Some of my constituents visited the House a few weeks ago and they told me that they were very concerned about these issues.
      When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he will spell out in words of two or three syllables—as redundancy cannot be encompassed in words of one syllable—what guarantees exist for my constituents. Some of my constituents have already suffered redundancy and moved from the royal naval dockyards to the PSA. What guarantees do they have that in two years' time they will not face worse redundancy or pension terms than they would have had if the PSA remained in the public sector?
      If my hon. Friend the Minister can provide assurances, I promise him that I will tell my constituents that they will benefit from the Bill. The Government have every reason to offer such assurances tonight. They would then be setting the tone for the debates in another place which, again, must be to the advantage of the Government as well as for those who are worried about their future. The PSA employees have served us well and I hope that the Minister will consider them tonight.
      Mr. Chope: I am pleased to be able to respond to this very good debate which has covered the all-important issue of terms and conditions of service for PSA staff. As several hon. Members have said, the PSA is blessed with good and loyal staff and the Government are as aware as anyone of the need to ensure that the PSA staff are well looked after. I want to deal with the effects that the amendment would have and explain why the Government cannot accept it. In doing that, I will respond to the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) on behalf of their constituents. I will also pray in aid of some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). I will also deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow wanted to have it both ways. On the one hand he suggested that the privatised companies would be in such dire financial straits that they would not be able to meet their redundancy obligations. On the other hand he said that those companies would be controlled by, as he put it, get-rich-quick controllers. No controller will get rich very quickly if the business does not flourish. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's reference to that is an acceptance that the businesses will be able to flourish in the private sector and that all the employees, whether in a management or a subsidiary role, will be able to share in the fruits of the success of the enterprises.
      The amendment would have several effects. It would require the new owners of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers to provide the staff with a pension scheme comparable to the principal Civil Service pension scheme. It would also require the new owners to provide the staff as far as possible with identical redundancy terms to those that they have at present. It also appears to require redundancy terms to be guaranteed out of public funds. It will also delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 2(2).
      On pensions, the Government have no doubt that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)
      106
      Regulations 1981 will apply to the sales. As hon. Members know, the regulations give effect to the European Community's acquired rights directive. The regulations ensure that staff contracts of employment are not terminated by the sale of a commercial undertaking. They also have the effect of transferring unchanged all their existing terms and conditions of employment, with the exception of those relating to pensions. That omission is because, given the diversity of pension schemes, it would be unreasonable to require purchasers exactly to reproduce the existing scheme.
      That is not to say that employees' pensions provisions are unprotected. It may be helpful if I quote what my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in Committee. At one stage, Opposition Members cast doubt on whether the TUPE regulations were to apply to PSA staff. From what my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is quite clear that the TUPE regulations apply. He said:
      "in the case of a person transferred, under TUPE the transferor and the transferee must so arrange things that the pension rights enjoyed by staff after the transfer are broadly comparable with those enjoyed before. That is the legal requirement".
      He went on:
      "If they do not, or cannot, the Government and the Crown will need to ensure that staff are compensated for any disadvantage."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 January 1990; c. 202.]
      I assure hon. Members that the Government accept those legal obligations and will comply with them.
      9.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye referred to assurances that were made to staff, irrespective of the privatisation of the royal ordnance factories and the royal dockyards. Those privatisations were more advanced when the assurances were given. As the sales of the Crown Suppliers and the PSA proceed, it should be possible to give firmer assurances about the comparability of pensions terms. Obviously, until we know who is to purchase the business, it is not possible to know what the purchaser's pension arrangements are and what he is offering. In cases such as the royal ordnance factories, when the Bill was before the House and was being considered by hon. Members, it was clear who was to be the purchaser and what his pension terms would be. That is why there is an inevitable distinction between what happened in that case and what happens with the PSA.
      On redundancy, the amendment falls into two parts. The first part concerns the redundancy terms themselves. The amendment would require the new owners to provide redundancy terms that, as far as possible, are identical to those that they have at present. That is precisely the commitment that the Government have given the staff. Hon. Members will have realised that, on pensions and redundancy terms, the amendment would do no more than the Government are already seeking to achieve. Those are requirements that arise from existing United Kingdom law and from the Government's obligations arising from our membership of the European Community. I believe that it is unnecessary, and indeed undesirable, to clog up the statute book with provisions that merely repeat existing requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North asked why the Government did not put that provision into the Bill. The reason is that it is unnecessary and superfluous. It is already the law of the land, and the Government will comply with the law of the land.

      107
      The second part of the amendment dealing with redundancy refers to guarantees. The trade unions concerned and Opposition Members have made clear their views on the need for guarantees from public funds. That is an important point on which the unions have made representations, and I can assure the House that their views are being considered. Of course, their fears are greatly exaggerated. During the sale competitions we shall give preference to potential purchasers who demonstrate a willingness and ability to run the businesses as going concerns and also have the necessary financial robustness to do so. It is not the Government's general experience that firms act unscrupulously or in bad faith by contriving redundancies for which they cannot or will not pay. It is not easy for employers to avoid their obligations, and they generally prove very reluctant to damage their reputations in the marketplace and with their staff. One of the criteria for selecting the purchasers will be an assessment of their ability to finance any redundancies that become necessary after privatisation, and I do not believe, therefore, that there is any need for guarantees of public funds.
      Mr. Dalyell rose——
      Mr. Chope: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am referring to the various allegations that he made about the effect on terms and conditions if an employer who purchased the business changed those terms and conditions. I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. Much of the material that he used as his source was issued by the trade unions and suggests that there is no protection for an employee if the new employer wishes to impose changes in the terms and conditions after privatisation. An employer cannot do that. The general principle of law is that fundamental terms and conditions cannot be changed without the agreement of the employees. If, therefore, an employer tries to impose changes in the terms and conditions, such as those relating to redundancy, the employee merely has to inform the employer that he does not accept the new terms and if the employee is then made redundant after a period of notice, he can insist on the payment of his old redundancy rights. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the employee would be limited to his statutory rights, but I repeat that such an employee would be entitled to his old redundancy rights on a contractual basis.
      I accept that if the purchaser went into liquidation, an action for damages might fail to achieve redress, but we shall be at pains to choose purchasers who are financially robust.
      Mr. Dalyell: When the Minister and his advisers have had an opportunity to reflect on my speech in print, may I expect a letter of clarification on the points raised?
      Mr. Chope: If, after reading my speech in print, the hon. Gentleman feels that any further clarification is necessary, perhaps he will write to me and I shall deal with the matter.
      There has only been one Civil Service case in which the Government have agreed to pay redundancy costs. That was Devonport dockyard. It was justified in that case because of the Government's own decision to run down the work load there. We expect the Crown Suppliers and PSA to succeed commercially, which is why the cases are different.
      The fourth and final effect of the amendment would be to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 2(2). These
      108
      provisions, which have appeared in all recent Acts for privatisations involving members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme, are to deal with a quirk in the terms and conditions of employment of civil servants. Because their redundancy terms are included in the pension scheme, and because when they are transferred out of the Civil Service they must cease to be members of the pension scheme, they would automatically become entitled to redundancy compensation as well as their jobs. The staff will, of course, in no real sense be redundant when PSA and the Crown Suppliers are sold. They will have their jobs, their existing terms and conditions of employment, and pensions and redundancy terms as I have just described. To expect the taxpayer to pay what would amount to very substantial sums in redundancy compensation for all staff transferred could not possibly be justified in these circumstances. That point was accepted in Committee.
      In conclusion, I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that I am well aware of the concern in his constituency about the rundown in the number of staff employed by the PSA. However, that is not a consequence of privatisation. It is a consequence of untying, of reorganisation and of a cost-effectiveness exercise. As I stated in the letter to my hon. Friend to which he referred, we—not only myself, but other Government Departments—are doing all that we can to ensure that alternative employment opportunities are available in Hastings. I have already visited Hastings once and have made arrangements to visit the town again soon. I hope that I shall have the opportunity of meeting the staff there and of allaying their concerns.
      For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Chope.]
      Order for Third Reading read. [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
      9.54 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      When I moved the Second Reading, I said that, although short, the Bill was significant. I am glad that it received thorough scrutiny in Committee. The Committee's proceedings exceeded 26 hours, of which more than 20 hours were devoted to the first two of the Bill's six clauses. The debates on those clauses concentrated mainly on the effect of the Bill on the Government as a customer of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers and on the position of the staff.
      The Government are convinced that the PSA and Crown Suppliers face a better future in the private sector. We also believe that the customers of the two organisations will benefit from the change. Naturally, the Government accept that some of the activities undertaken in the past by the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are not suitable for privatisation. Those parts of the Crown Suppliers that fall into that category have already been moved to other Departments and similar arrangements are being made for the PSA.
      Anxieties have been expressed about the consequences for staff of the two privatisations. We have been at pains to point out that the Bill does not affect the employment

      109
      rights of staff. Those rights were protected and transferred under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. As I explained in Committee, where they are not covered by those regulations they are protected by United Kingdom employment law.
      I hope that the House will acknowledge the care with which the Government have addressed the issue of staff employment rights. I repeat the assurance already given to employees and to the House that the staff of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers will not be disadvantaged as a result of privatisation. I believe that the staff will gain from the measure and that the PSA and Crown Suppliers face a much better future in the private sector.
      I hope that with those brief remarks I have demonstrated to the House that customers, Departments and staff of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers have nothing to fear from privatisation and much to gain.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the skilful way in which he has piloted this important Bill through its various stages. I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
      9.57 pm
      Mr. Soley: We regard the Bill as the pursuit of ideology for its own sake. There will be many mini-PSAs. No doubt they have already been set up in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We shall have to re-invent the PSA in years to come, and we all know it. If the Bill has not been enacted by the time that Labour takes office, we shall stop it and rebuild what has been destroyed.
      We have had lengthy and detailed debates about the security aspects of the Bill. We are far from happy about it. I do not accept, and the House does not accept, that privatisation of Ministers' cars and the security of their homes should be exempt from privatisation while the means of security of our forces and their families and of senior civil servants should be privatised. There must be something wrong with that, and we all know it.
      Security in Northern Ireland is even more important. When private contractors are threatened with being shot or have to withdraw from contracts because of such threats, it cannot be right to transfer activities to the private sector.
      I was interested to note that we received the support of a couple of Conservative Back-Bench Members on pensions and redundancy. If all Conservative Members had 2,000 employees in their constituency, perhaps we should have better pension and redundancy schemes.
      It is clear from a leaked document from the Department that jobs will be lost as a result of the measure. We know that. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) referred to the insecurity of the work force in his constituency which has already suffered the privatisation of the royal dockyard. The same could happen again.
      Finally, there is the danger of sweeteners, which occurred with the Rover and British Aerospace deals. We shall watch out for that carefully because we know that in the past the Government have used taxpayers' money to persuade the private sector to buy an undertaking that should not have been sold in the first place. That is our position, and why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.
      9.59 pm
      Mr. Livsey: The principle of the Bill is worthy of consideration. It falls down because we are looking at the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers, which is making a loss, at a Government service and a completely new principle of privatisation. Costs will undoubtedly increase to Government Departments and the estimate for consultancies is an increase of 20 per cent.
      The issue of pension rights is absolutely crucial and we have not received sufficient assurances about them. Two reports from within Government, one in 1985 and the other in 1987, said that this is a bad idea.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      Question again proposed.
      Mr. Livsey: The decision for privatisation has not been substantiated in our debates. The arguments about the proposals to privatise the PSA and the Crown Suppliers have not been sustained convincingly. For that reason, we are not prepared to support the Bill on Third Reading.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 200.

      Division No. 72]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Colvin, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Conway, Derek

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Amess, David

      Couchman, James

      Amos, Alan

      Cran, James

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Day, Stephen

      Ashby, David

      Devlin, Tim

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dicks, Terry

      Atkins, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Atkinson, David

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Dover, Den

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dunn, Bob

      Batiste, Spencer

      Durant, Tony

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bellingham, Henry

      Eggar, Tim

      Bendall, Vivian

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Evennett, David

      Benyon, W.

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Favell, Tony

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bowis, John

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Forman, Nigel

      Brazier, Julian

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Forth, Eric

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Burns, Simon

      Freeman, Roger

      Burt, Alistair

      French, Douglas

      Butler, Chris

      Gardiner, George

      Butterfill, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Gill, Christopher

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Carttiss, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Chope, Christopher

      Gorst, John

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

      Gow, Ian

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      111

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Grist, Ian

      Mills, Iain

      Grylls, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Hague, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Moate, Roger

      Hannam, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

      Mudd, David

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Harris, David

      Needham, Richard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hayward, Robert

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Norris, Steve

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Hill, James

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hind, Kenneth

      Page, Richard

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Paice, James

      Holt, Richard

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

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

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Pawsey, James

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Portillo, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Price, Sir David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Irvine, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Jackson, Robert

      Riddick, Graham

      Janman, Tim

      Rowe, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Sainsbury, Hon Tim

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Key, Robert

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kilfedder, James

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Speller, Tony

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Knapman, Roger

      Squire, Robin

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Steen, Anthony

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Stern, Michael

      Knowles, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lang, Ian

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Latham, Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Lightbown, David

      Tracey, Richard

      Lilley, Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Trippier, David

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Lord, Michael

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Walden, George

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Waller, Gary

      Maclean, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Warren, Kenneth

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Watts, John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Wells, Bowen

      Madel, David

      Whitney, Ray

      Malins, Humfrey

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mans, Keith

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Maples, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Marland, Paul

      Wood, Timothy

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Woodcock, Dr. Mike

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Mr. Michael Fallon and

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Mr. John M. Taylor

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, Donald

      Allen, Graham

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Alton, David

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      112

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Ashton, Joe

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

      Barron, Kevin

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Battle, John

      Home Robertson, John

      Beckett, Margaret

      Hood, Jimmy

      Beith, A. J.

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

      Howells, Geraint

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hoyle, Doug

      Blair, Tony

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Blunkett, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Boyes, Roland

      lllsley, Eric

      Bradley, Keith

      Ingram, Adam

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Janner, Greville

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Buchan, Norman

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Buckley, George J.

      Lambie, David

      Caborn, Richard

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Callaghan, Jim

      Leighton, Ron

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Lewis, Terry

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Litherland, Robert

      Canavan, Dennis

      Livingstone, Ken

      Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

      Livsey, Richard

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Clay, Bob

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Clelland, David

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cohen, Harry

      McAllion, John

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Corbett, Robin

      McFall, John

      Cousins, Jim

      McKelvey, William

      Crowther, Stan

      McLeish, Henry

      Cryer, Bob

      McWilliam, John

      Cummings, John

      Madden, Max

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Marek, Dr John

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Darling, Alistair

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Martlew, Eric

      Dewar, Donald

      Meacher, Michael

      Dixon, Don

      Meale, Alan

      Dobson, Frank

      Michael, Alun

      Doran, Frank

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Morley, Elliot

      Eadie, Alexander

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Faulds, Andrew

      Murphy, Paul

      Fearn, Ronald

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      O'Brien, William

      Flannery, Martin

      O'Neill, Martin

      Flynn, Paul

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Patchett, Terry

      Foster, Derek

      Pendry, Tom

      Foulkes, George

      Pike, Peter L.

      Fraser, John

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Prescott, John

      Galloway, George

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Radice, Giles

      George, Bruce

      Randall, Stuart

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Redmond, Martin

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Gordon, Mildred

      Reid, Dr John

      Gould, Bryan

      Richardson, Jo

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Robertson, George

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Grocott, Bruce

      Rooker, Jeff

      Hardy, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Rowlands, Ted

      Haynes, Frank

      Ruddock, Joan

      113

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dennis

      Sheerman, Barry

      Walley, Joan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Short, Clare

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

      Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

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

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

      Winnick, David

      Snape, Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Soley, Clive

      Worthington, Tony

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wray, Jimmy

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Strang, Gavin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. Ken Eastham and

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

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

      INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
      That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
      Question agreed to.

  Mr. Colin Wallace
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As this debate relates to the North of Ireland, I am sure that my colleagues will not take it amiss if I refer, with sadness, to the passing of our friend, Harold McCusker. Shortly after he was elected a Member of Parliament I spent the day with him, as did others, in his constituency. It was an interesting experience because he was a marvellous host, and we learnt a lot. We mourn the passing of this courageous and brave colleague.
  On Wednesday 15 November 1989, Hansard records that I asked the Prime Minister
  "what recent representations have been received by her Cabinet secretariat relating to events at the Kincora boys' home in Northern Ireland."
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "I am advised that there have been no such representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public."—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 269.]
  The word "such" was underlined. I cannot assert that never, in a parliamentary answer, has one word been underlined, but never in the recollection of four of the most senior Clerks of the House of Commons—not in the recollection of Sir Clifford Boulton, Mr. Sweetman, Mr. Limon or Mr. Winnifrith—has a word ever been underlined. Therefore, we must ask why that happened.
  On 27 November 1989 I asked the Prime Minister
  "why, in her answer, Official Report, 15 November, relating to representations received by the Cabinet Secretariat relating to events at the Kincora boys' home she underlined the word 'such'".
  The answer will not come as a shock to my hon. Friends. She said:
  "I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 15 November at column 269.—[Official Report, 27 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 92.]
  As there were no such representations, the question that I wanted to put down but, under the Table Office rules, could not was to ask why there were representations frotn Sir Michael Quinlan, the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence, and Mr. Len Appleyard, the deputy secretary in the Cabinet Office. The question of which I have given the Minister warning is this: if there were no such representations, what representations were made and what were the terms of reference?
  The second question of which I gave notice to the Attorney-General's office, to whom this Adjournment debate was addressed, was to ask about the letter of the shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—and I thank him for his presence. He wrote on 1 February:
  "Dear Prime Minister,
  I have read with care your letter of 30 January 1990 to Mr. Terence Higgins. Since the issues raised cover a number of departmental responsibilities I am writing to seek clarification of certain aspects of your letter.
  I would be glad if you could clear up the following:—

  1. Which statements in your letters, Ministerial statements and official correspondence were in each case either incorrect or require clarification?

  2. What in each of the said letters, Ministerial statements and official correspondence was either incorrect or requires clarification?

  3. Which, if any, of the Ministerial statements referred to were made in the House?"

  115
  I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said on 30 January in her letter to my right hon. and learned Friend:
  "I regret to say that a re-examination of Departmental papers has brought to light information which shows that there were a number of statements in my letterss, and in other Ministerial statements and official correspondence, which were incorrect or required clarification."
  My right hon. and learned Friend received an answer to his questions on the very same day:
  "Dear Mr. Morris,
  I am writing on the Prime Minister's behalf to thank you for your letter of 1 February"—
  he does not yet have an answer.
  "This is receiving attention and I shall ensure that a reply is sent to you as soon as possible."
  Even Conservative Members will understand that this was not quite a routine letter. How many of them receive letters from the Prime Minister's secretary signed, "Yours sincerely, Charles Powell." Mr. Charles Powell does not spend his time acknowledging routine letters. What on earth did the principal private secretary to the Prime Minister, responsible for foreign affairs, have to do with the case of Colin Wallace and the statements made by the Prime Minister on it?
  I can only imagine that the Prime Minister said to him, "Charles, this is a matter for you to handle. After all, you have all the expertise from the Westland affair." So regurgitate my right hon. and learned Friend's letter and I ask for a full explanation. I shall give the Minister plenty of time in which to reply, and I am sure that he will welcome the opportunity to answer me fully.
  I wish to ask the Minister a final question of which he has had notice: why on earth was General Gerald Whiteley, the director of Army legal services, ever involved in the case of Colin Wallace? What on earth was he doing meddling with the Court of Appeal?
  These are serious questions; the House of Commons deserves a full answer to them.
  10.23 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): First, I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the loss of our colleague Harold McCusker. We send our condolences to his wife and family.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow [Interruption.] Were it not for his intervention in this matter I would not have read "War Without Honour", about the exploits of Captain Holroyd, or "Who Framed Colin Wallace?" by Paul Foot. The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues about the case of Colin Wallace, and, with his usual courtesy, he gave notice on Friday of the three particular questions to which he seeks answers. I shall deal with the latter tonight and with any other essential issues as time permits.
  I know that my response will not satisfy all those who choose to see in Mr. Wallace's various allegations the evidence that they seek to justify their belief in an all-embracing conspiracy by Crown servants against the Government. That does not deter me from explaining the available facts to the House once again, since the facts are more important in this matter, rather than speculation that cannot be substantiated.
  116
  As many hon. Members know, Mr. Wallace was employed as a civil servant in the headquarters in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1975. He served in the successive grades of assistant information officer, information officer and senior information officer.
  It was worth reminding the House at this point of the situation that confronted the security forces in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s. By that time, law and order in the province had deteriorated to so great a degree that the Government concluded that it was essential to direct the Army to play a major role in support of the police to fight terrorism. That was a daunting task. The IRA was engaged in a campaign of bombings, assassinations and maiming on an unprecedented and horrific scale, supporting that violence with a campaign of virulent propaganda.
  It is a tribute to the many Crown servants who served in Northern Ireland then that they put so much effort into dealing with the extreme difficulties that they faced. For them, the learning curve was steep. It was essential to regain the initiative, and effective measures were imperative to counter both the terrorists and their propaganda. Explaining the true purpose of the work of the security forces and countering IRA propaganda were key ingredients in restoring law and order in the community.
  Mr. Wallace was one of a number in the Government information service who played their part. By all accounts, Mr. Wallace was an extremely hard worker. He devoted considerable personal effort to understanding any aspect of the complex world of Northern Ireland that might have been relevant to the fight against terrorism.
  As each promotion increased his responsibilities, his efforts were increasingly widened. By all accounts, he took great interest in collecting any information, story, or rumour which might be of interest.
  Like all information officers, his duties required him to exercise discretion when deciding how best to communicate with the media, and how much to say on each occasion. That does not mean to say that his exercise of discretion was unfettered. All information officers are expected to operate within the limits of the authority given to them, and to demonstrate constantly that they are interpreting their duties properly. In particular, the release of classified documents is not a matter which is left to the sole discretion of individual information officers.
  The extent of Mr. Wallace's discretion in the handling of classified information falls within the ambit of Mr. Calcutt's inquiry.
  After Mr. Wallace had been transferred to another post, and had left his job in Headquarters Northern Ireland, he provided a journalist with a classified document. He did so without seeking or receiving authority. The act was almost immediately discovered. Mr. Wallace initially denied and then admitted it.
  The view was taken that his act required disciplinary action, and it was concluded that dismissal was appropriate. Mr. Wallace appealed to the Civil Service appeal board, which recommended that, in the light of his earlier good service, he should be allowed to resign. He and the Ministry of Defence accepted that recommendation, and he resigned from the Civil Service in 1975. He clearly felt that he had suffered an injustice, and he sought to air his grievances. In recent years, one of his contentions in this context has been that he was dismissed because he refused to engage in improper activities. He has alleged

  117
  that during the 1970s the security forces and Crown servants serving in Northern Ireland had engaged in a variety of activities which he seemed to think improper or illegal. He has also alleged that the security forces deliberately covered up information relating to homosexual activities at Kincora. In 1981 he was convicted of manslaughter and has since contended variously that the verdict was unsound and that he was framed. More recently his letters to Government Departments have included the allegation that the project called Clockwork Orange had been undertaken by Crown servants in Northern Ireland in 1974 and had included the issue of defamatory material aimed at Ministers and Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Wallace's case has been brought back into the limelight by the written answer that I gave and letters that I sent to hon. Members at the end of last month. In them I volunteered information to correct the record concerning inaccuracies in information previously given to hon. Members by Ministers. I did that because it was right to do so. In the same spirit, inquiries have been commissioned into two related matters. I must tell the House again that nothing discovered in the process leading to the public correction of those inaccuracies constitutes any evidence to corroborate Mr. Wallace's allegations about illegal activities or about the use of disinformation by Crown servants to denigrate Ministers and hon. Members.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: Mr. Colin Wallace has alleged that he informed his superiors when he was an Army information officer that he had evidence that boys in the Kincora boys' home had been abused and were being abused. Was that information acted on? Is there any record of those allegations having been made to superiors? There is grave disquiet in Northern Ireland and surely it would be much better to have a full investigation into the whole issue of the Kincora boys' home.
  Mr. Hamilton: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there have been two full inquiries into the Kincora boys' home, one by Chief Constable Terry from Sussex and one by Judge Hughes. The opportunity was given to Mr. Wallace to give evidence to the Hughes inquiry but he found reasons for not doing so, which were that he would not be covered by the Official Secrets Act. There have been opportunities for him to give evidence and he has not done so. To date we have no evidence whatever, any evidence on which we can work, which indicates that Mr. Wallace had the sort of evidence that we needed to gain convictions over the Kincora affair earlier than actually happened.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that MI5 or MI6 obstructed or blocked an inquiry into the Kincora affair in 1973, 1974 or 1975?
  Mr. Hamilton: Those are unsubstantiated rumours that have been put down.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are they true?
  Mr. Hamilton: There is no evidence whatever that they are. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that that is the case he should present it. There is no evidence about that whatever.
  Some hon. Members have intimated that we would not have commissioned the inquiry by Mr. Calcutt had it not already become clear that Mr. Wallace should not have been dismissed. That is not so. Available papers record
  118
  that Mr. Wallace did provide a journalist with a classified document, and that it was felt right at the time that he should be dismissed. The reason for asking Mr. Calcutt to look into the dismissal procedure is to enable him to consider whether, with the benefit of 15 years of hindsight, the presentation of his case to the Civil Service appeal board was entirely fair. Mr. Calcutt will consider whether, in comparison with the handling of a similar case today, Mr. Wallace was hard done by. No evidence has been found which justifies the theory of a conspiracy to remove Mr. Wallace because he refused to take part in Clockwork Orange.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow for giving me advance notice of questions. He asked me to identify those earlier ministerial statements which were incorrect and those which required clarification. As my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on 30 January made clear, Mr. Wallace undertook duties beyond those described explicitly in his formal job description. An additional job description was drafted to cover those additional duties, but they are not recorded in any subsequent approved and issued job description.
  The letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 30 March 1987 said that the job description given to the Civil Service appeal board was the only one applicable to Mr. Wallace's job. To the extent that it was the only one that formally existed, that was true, but it was felt right to acknowledge the existence of a draft that was brought to light last year.
  Re-examination of files indicated that Mr. Wallace had undertaken unattributable covert briefing, which probably included disinformation designed to discredit the Provisional IRA. It was considered that this should also be put on the record to correct statements about the nature of Mr. Wallace's duties made in the Prime Minister's letter of 30 March 1987 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and any misunderstandings that may unwittingly have been communicated to other right hon. and hon. Members.
  My answer also explained that documents had recently come to light that made reference to a project called Clockwork Orange. Those documents made it plain that this was to have been an exercise to plant a story designed to discredit the leadership of the Provisional IRA but that its implementation was never approved. In a letter to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), dated 15 August 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) and in an answer given on 10 January 1989 my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), each in his capacity as Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, stated that they had no evidence that a project of that name had ever existed. That was a true statement of the information available to them. When information relating to Clockwork Orange was found, it was considered proper to put the record straight.
  I also wrote to the hon. Member for Brent, East to add to the information that I had been able to provide previously about a mock raid on Aldergrove airport. He had asked a number of questions on the subject and it was felt appropriate to make the additional information available to him. Two errors of fact were also corrected in that letter. The records previously examined showed only that Mr. William Black had been shot in 1974 with a Sterling sub-machine gun. Papers re-examined last year

  119
  contained the additional information that the weapon was a model L34A1, which is fitted with an integral suppressor or silencer. That information was pertinent to the questions that the hon. Member has asked. Other papers indicated that the Ingram MAC 10 sub-machine gun had been issued at an earlier date than had previously been indicated. That information was accordingly passed to the hon. Member to correct an answer given on 15 December 1988.
  I should now like to turn to the reference made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow to the words "such representations." It is important to put that point, which the hon. Gentleman somewhat laboured, in context. The hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
  "what recent representations have been received by her Cabinet secretariat relating to events at the Kincora boys' home in Northern Ireland."
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied:
  "I am advised that there have been no such representations from Members of Parliament and members of the public."—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 269.]
  That seems to be a pretty standard answer. I take the hon. Gentleman's word for it that the word "such" was underlined. He should not ask me why that was, but I have nothing further to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: Would the Minister like to comment on today's revelations that in 1973 Mr. Wallace's superior officer, Mr. Peter Broderick, saw and initialled Mr. Wallace's report drawing attention to systematic child abuse at Kincora? Does it not worry him that that continued for a further seven years after it had been brought to the attention of senior Army officers? Has he seen the statement in today's newspapers reporting the views of Sir George Terry, who conducted one of the earlier inquiries into Kincora? He says:
  "I am sure that in the light of all that is now being said, any inquiry that can look at everything would be a very wise step".
  Mr. Justice Hughes has been prayed in aid to say that we need no further inquiry. He now states that, contrary to the Government's position, he did not receive the papers that Colin Wallace submitted to the Prime Minister in 1984, although the House has been told that those papers were made available. The Minister has now told the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) that the originals of the documents submitted to the Prime Minister have disappeared from the Prime Minister's office and cannot be traced. Is that not causing the Minister concern? There is something more important than a job description involved here.
  Mr. Hamilton: I cannot comment on all those points. If Mr. Broderick has evidence about Kincora, he should take it to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is the body to deal with these matters. If he finds that difficult and feels that this is covered by the Official Secrets Act 1911, he should take the matter up with the Director of Army Security, who certaintly will help him.
  It is typical of all the allegations that we have heard that people are more than happy to make statements to newspapers about what should happen, but when they are given the opportunity to present the facts—we are looking for facts—to the authorities, we do not get them. That has been the history all the way. Massive assertions are made,
  120
  but people are not prepared to present the facts to the authorities, who would be more than happy to deal with them.
  I should now like to turn to a number of serious allegations that were raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in the Adjournment debate on Tuesday 6 February. Those allegations about the conduct of civil servants, members of the security and intelligence services and others suggest that they have been or may have been involved in the dissemination of false information about Members of Parliament. I remind the House of the points that I made last Tuesday. It is no part of the official duties of any Crown servant to disseminate false information about Members of Parliament in order to denigrate them in any way. All Governments and hon. Members on both sides of the House would regard any such action as unacceptable. Government servants are well aware of the conduct expected of them and of the severe consequences that they might suffer in any case where those standards of conduct were breached.
  I had hoped that the statement that I made in the debate on Tuesday would enable hon. Members to draw a clear distinction between disinformation aimed at hon. Members and cases in the early 1970s when disinformation was used to denigrate the Provisional IRA. As I said then, the Government judge that no useful purpose would be served by an inquiry now into disinformation designed to denigrate the Provisional IRA so many years ago, under previous Administrations, in a policy framework long since changed and amid all the operational stresses of the early and peak years of a very difficult emergency.
  I repeat that the Government regard disinformation aimed at Members of Parliament or former Ministers as a quite different and special matter which was dealt with by the Prime Minister's statement in 1987. I must say again that no evidence of any substance has emerged from our review of papers to put that statement into question.
  Mr. Max Madden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give way because I have other comments to make.
  There seems to be misapprehension in some Members' minds that unattributable covert briefing represents an unacceptable practice and that use of classified information in that context is improper. There is nothing wrong in using classified information during unattributable briefing, provided that the briefing is for proper purposes and that the disclosure of classified information has been properly authorised. I know of no reason to believe that, contrary to normal practice, Mr. Wallace was given total discretion to release whatever classified information he wished to disclose.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I tell the Minister plainly that the inquiry by the former Prime Minister and myself into dirty tricks certainly did not include the disinformation against Members of Parliament between 1971 and 1975? That should be inquired into, because someone authorised that to be done.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was referring to the inquiry carried out by the head of the security services, under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That inquiry investigated that matter in great

  121
  depth and the head of the security services found no evidence that that campaign of disinformation had been carried out by his security services or even by a disaffected group within the security services.
  As my right hon. Friend and I have assured the House, the papers that have come to light on the Colin Wallace case do not contain any evidence to support his allegations about a "smear" campaign about Members of Parliament. As I have described already, the only element of his claims about disinformation that has been confirmed is that an
  122
  operation known as Clockwork Orange was conceived. The documents found show that that operation was, I repeat, aimed at the Provisional IRA—not at Members of Parliament—and was not approved.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Budgets
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many authorities' aggregated schools budgets have been rejected by his Department and will not be implemented in 1990; and if he will give the reason in each case.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Determination of the aggregated schools budget in each local education authority is a matter for the authority itself and is not subject to approval by my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received any representations

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Outflow

  249

  203

  214

  153

  138

  154

  204

  191

  160

  Inflow

  276

  183

  118

  220

  318

  292

  260

  199

  244

  Net intake

  27

  -20

  -96

  67

  180

  138

  56

  8

  84

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the number of non-British scientists working in United Kingdom institutions.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Brain Drain
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence he has as to whether a brain drain exists from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jackson
  No firm evidence exists of a 'brain drain' from this country. The best information currently available shows that there has been a net inflow to the United Kingdom of full-time non-clinical academic staff in universities in every year since 1983. I announced in July 1989 that I had requested the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals to monitor flows of university staff in and out of this country and to ensure that data about this are reliable.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish for each local education authority his estimate of its outturn expenditure for 1989–90 on a basis comparable with its standard spending assessments for education for 1990–91.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No information about outturn expenditure for 1989–90 at LEA level is yet available centrally.
  2
  from Nottinghamshire county council requesting exceptional treatment for its aggregated school budget because of the size of its nursery provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department has received a number of representations from Nottinghamshire county council about nursery provision and its scheme for local management of schools. My right hon. Friend has announced his intention to approve the scheme submitted by Nottinghamshire county council subject to a number of modifications. The council is currently being consulted on the proposed modifications.

  Scientists
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many scientists are leaving the United Kingdom now; and how many left in each year since 1978.

  Mr. Jackson
  Available data relate to the number of full-time university academic staff in all disciplines leaving the United Kingdom for employment or study abroad. The numbers of non-clinical staff leaving since 1980 (the earliest year for which comparable data are available) are as follows:

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what real increases:in his Department's running costs are planned to occur in 1991 and 1991–92; what steps will be taken to ensure that the increases represent value for money; and if he will deposit a copy of the relevant management plan in the Library.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As announced in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 1011), DES running costs net of receipts are planned to be £78·985 million in 1990–91 and £89·192 million in 1991–92. The figure for the latter year includes provision of £5·9 million for the additional recurrent costs in 1991–92 of the Department's new London headquarters. Excluding this sum, the planned increase in real terms in the Department's running costs provision from 1990–91 to 1991–92 will be 1·9 per cent.

  The Department is committed to achieving the maximum possible value for money from its running costs expenditure and has achieved significant increases in efficiency, for example from its investment in information technology. Future plans will concentrate on securing continuing improvements in value for money. It is not, however, our practice to publish internal management planning documents.

  Colleges and Polytechnics
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many advanced further education students were in colleges and polytechnics in 1988–89; how many higher education students were in colleges and polytechnics in 1989–90; and how many
  3
  higher education students are proposed to be funded in colleges and polytechnics by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  The public expenditure White Paper (Cm 1011) published on 30 January 1990 indicated that there were 240,000 home full-time and sandwich higher education students in the PCFC sector in the academic year 1988–89. The numbers were projected to increase to 251,000 and 260,000 respectively in the following two years. My right hon. Friend announced to the House on 8 February that the numbers of home full-time and sandwich higher education students in the PCFC sector in the 1989–90 academic year were now provisionally estimated to be 261,000.

  The PCFC allocations for 1989–90 and 1990–91 were on the basis of 240,000 and 254,000 home full-time and sandwich students. Institutions will also benefit from tuition fee income at the rate of £1,675 for each student with a mandatory award from September 1990.

  St. Mary's Trinity and St. Bridget's Schools
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision will be made for the education of children at St. Mary's Trinity and St. Bridget's Church of England primary schools, Liverpool, following their proposed closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No statutory proposals have yet been published to cease to maintain these schools. Provision for the education of the children concerned is the responsibility of the Liverpool education authority.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how the education component of SSAs for inner London in 1990–91 will support a percentage increase to London weighting for teachers greater than the general percentage increase to teachers' pay; what is the expected cost of this measure; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how the education component of SSAs for inner London in 1990–91 will support the use of new pay flexibility in enhancement of incremental points and extension of incremental scales as a response to shortage of teachers; what is the expected cost of these measures; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how the education component of SSAs for inner London in 1990–91 will support the introduction of the proposed new £750 discretionary pay addition to teachers in inner London; what is the expected cost of this measure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The estimated cost to the inner London councils of the increase in London weighting in respect of 1990–91 is £2–2 million; the corresponding cost of the new £750 inner London supplement, on the assumptions made in the IAC report, is £6·9 million. The use of the other local flexibilities from 1 January 1991 is a matter for individual LEAs. Education standard spending assessments include an area cost adjustment which reflects general labour cost differentials between London, the south-east and other areas of England. This provides the inner London councils with the basis to meet the costs of implementation of the IAC recommendations.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to publish an information leaflet for students on top-up-loans.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have published a leaflet giving details of top-up loans. It is intended to indicate to students, potential students and others how the student loans scheme should operate, and the terms on which the loans will be offered, if the Education (Student Loans) Bill is enacted. Copies have been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Grant Programmes
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will publish the report of the efficiency scrutiny of his Department's specific grant programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr MacGregor
  I am today publishing the report of the efficiency scrutiny of my Department's two main specific grant programmes, education support grants and the local education authority training grants scheme. The scrutiny was undertaken as part of the efficiency unit's scrutiny programme.

  I welcome the report's conclusion that both grants are meeting their objectives, and have promoted important and beneficial developments which would not otherwise have happened. The evidence received by the scrutiny provides overwhelming support for the two schemes, and I readily accept the recommendation that they should continue.

  The main recommendation for change is that we should move to bring the two grants together into a unified scheme. I endorse this in principle. It should promote better co-ordination between the grants, with training needs being considered alongside other forms of support, such as materials and advisory staff. This should be particularly valuable for activities supporting the implementation of the education reforms. It should also offer administrative savings.

  Ministers will be giving further consideration to the legislative and practical implications of this change, taking account of the views of the local authority associations. We shall also consider, with a view to implementation, the other recommendations for improving the administration and evaluation of the grants. I would hope to begin to take account of them in drawing up proposals for the grant programmes for 1991–92, which I shall be announcing in the spring.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. They are also being sent to all local education authorities and other interested bodies.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the corporate plans of the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council will be published.

  Mr. Macgregor
  The National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council are today publishing their corporate plans for the period 1990–91 to 1992–93. I have agreed their expenditure proposals for 1990–91, subject to parliamentary approval
  5
  of the Estimates in due course. The two councils' expenditure proposals for 1991–92 and 1992–93 will be subject to review in the course of this year's public expenditure survey. I have arranged for copies of the plans to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sentencing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to seek the standardisation of court sentences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Our proposals for achieving greater consistency in sentencing practice are set out in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public' (Cm 965), published on 6 February. Sentences need to take account of the differences in the circumstances of offences and offenders: the aim is consistency of approach, rather than uniformity of outcome.

  Crack (Merseyside)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to launch any new initiatives to reduce the increases in use of crack in Merseyside.

  Mr. Mellor
  We already have in place a strategy for tackling drug misuse aimed at reducing both the supply of and the demand for all drugs, including cocaine and crack. Over £2 million is being made available in 1990–91 for a new drug prevention initiative which will involve the setting up of local drug prevention teams in a number of areas at risk from drugs and in particular from the threat of crack. Areas in Merseyside are among those being considered for the possible location of one of the initial teams.

  Police Expenditure
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of available information on the new system of capital expenditure control for the police service, which is to become operative from 1 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Home Office circular 35/1989, issued last July, gave early information about the new arrangements. Further details have been circulated to local authorities, including police authorities, by the Department of the Environment, in a consultative circular issued on 11 January 1990 and in the draft Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1990 issued on 2 February. Police authorities will be informed of their allocations of capital grant and supplementary credit approvals for 1990–91 as soon as possible.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will introduce legislation to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no plans to do so.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of the Police of Metropolis as to how many children and how many adults respectively, are known to have gone missing in the Metropolitan police district each month of the past two years for which records are available; and how many were subsequently traced(a) within a week, (b) within a month, (c) within three months, (d) within six months and (e) not for over six months of report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not possible to give monthly figures in relation to persons reported missing in the Metropolitan police district, and statistical information is not kept regarding the periods of time within which missing persons are traced. However, the following annual figures are given in relation to persons reported missing in the Metropolitan police district in 1988 and 1989.

  1988

  1989

  Males

  Under 14 years

  486

  2,955

  14 to 17 years

  937

  5,661

  18 years +

  2,710

  4,566

  Females

  Under 14 years

  421

  1,587

  14 to 17 years

  1,091

  6,078

  18 years +

  2,500

  4,413

  TOTAL

  8,145

  25,260

  Of the 8,145 persons reported missing during 1988, 1,075 were shown centrally as being still missing at the end of the year. Of the 25,260 persons reported missing during 1989, 315 were still missing at the end of the year. The figures for 1989 are not comparable with those of previous years owing to new recording procedures having been introduced.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as to how many inquiries the Metropolitan police received from other forces in respect of missing persons during the last year for which records are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total number of missing persons reports received by the Metropolitan police from other forces during 1989 was 6,913.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has consulted the European Economic Community countries which operate a national register for missing persons with a view to setting up such a register in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are not consulting EC member states direct. We hope instead to build on existing arrangements for the exchange of information internationally about missing persons, via the International Criminal Police Organisation (ICPO).

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make it his policy to comply with the recommendation of the Association of Chief Police Officers to create a national register for missing persons; and if he will make a statement.
  7
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are investigating the best and most cost-effective means of establishing a national missing persons register. A feasibility study has been commissioned to examine the possibility of putting missing persons data on the planned replacement for the police national computer system. We expect to receive the report on this study next month.

  Condoms (Prisons)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on the distribution of condoms and safer sex information in prisons.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is not our policy to make condoms available to prisoners. An important consideration is that they afford less protection against HIV infection when used for anal sex. We cannot be certain that a change of policy would not encourage significantly more sexual activity of a kind which, even with a condom, carries a particularly high risk of HIV infection. If that were to happen the result might be to increase rather than reduce the spread of infection.

  Advice on safer sex is included in the AIDS/HIV education programme for prisoners and is addressed to the need for safe behaviour after release as well as during custody. The part which condoms can play in reducing risk and how they should be used to achieve maximum protection is explained.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of claims outstanding for criminal injuries compensation at the beginning of each year since 1974; and what is the total number of such claims which are presently outstanding.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 1 February 1990, a total of 97,045 applications were awaiting resolution by the board. The other information requested is given in the table:

  Year beginning 1 April

  Applications outstanding

  1974

  9,118

  1975

  10,839

  1976

  13,930

  1977

  17,937

  1978

  23,331

  1979

  24,684

  1980

  26,372

  1981

  24,795

  1982

  28,738

  1983

  32,040

  1984

  34,235

  1985

  41,685

  1986

  51,420

  1987

  64,115

  1988

  77,965

  1989

  82,520

  Batons
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints he has received from the public regarding the use of martial-arts type batons for controlling violent or potentially violent individuals.
  8
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  None of which I am aware.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to allow bail hostels to be run by private operators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are examining how private sector involvement in the provision of bail accomodation, including bail hostels, can be increased but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he gives on the establishment of bail hostels in communities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The role of the Home Office in the setting up of individual bail hostels is confined to approving a proposal for funding. It is for local probation committees to decide the location of a bail hostel, obtain the appropriate planning consents and negotiate the purchase.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the amount of money made available for bail hostels in west Yorkshire for the years 1989–90 to 1990–91.

  Mr. John Patten
  Capital provision of up to £735,000 has been made available for additional bail and probation—bail hostel places in west Yorkshire in 1989–90. The allocation for 1990–91 is not yet decided.

  Rape
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to review the law in England and Wales on rape within marriage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  This aspect of law was last considered by the Criminal Law Revision Committee as part of its 1984 report on sexual offences. The committee recommended, by a narrow majority, that the law should not be changed to cover all subsisting marriages. It pointed out that where a husband commits assault or indecent assault, he can be prosecuted for these offences and that the question raises issues about the nature of marriage and about violence in the domestic context which go beyond the scope of the criminal law.

  Domestic violence is one of the subjects being considered by the ministerial group on women's issues. The rate of reporting of incidents of domestic violence has increased in recent years, and this may in part reflect greater awareness by the police, victims' organisations, other services and the public of the difficulties some women face.

  The Government believe that legislation in this area should proceed from a broad measure of agreement after careful examination of the wider issues such as those identified by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. We therefore welcome the Law Commission's agreement to carry out a joint criminal law and family law project in the context of its work on domestic violence. I understand that the aim is to produce a working paper, for consultation, early next year. The Government will consider the conclusions most carefully in deciding whether to change the law.

WALES

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In the year 1988–89 there were two cases of theft or misappropriation in the Welsh Office totalling £1,255. Any loss from theft or misappropriation is examined thoroughly and the lessons learned are used to strengthen systems to deter further fraud.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss-prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is the responsibility of all staff to prevent the misappropriation of funds. The following staff in my Department have a major role in aiding loss prevention through audit work.

  2 FCA

  3 CIPFA

  1 AAT

  4 MIIA

  10 BATS

  Baby Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the report on baby services in Wales chaired by Professor Sir Eric Stroud.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department proposes to publish shortly the report of the advisory group on perinatal intensive care.

  Special Needs Housing
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many units of accommodation for disabled people he estimates will need to be provided in Wales by the year 2010;

  (2) how many units of sheltered accommodation for (a) elderly people over 75 years and (b) very elderly people over 85 years he estimates will need to be provided in Wales by the year 2010;

  (3) what categories of accommodation he has identified as required in order to meet the needs of disabled people in Wales (a) now and (b) over the next 20 years;

  (4) what categories of accommodation he has identified as required in order to meet the needs of (a) elderly people over 75 years and (b) very elderly people over 85 years in Wales (i) now and (ii) over the next 20 years.

  Mr. Grist
  The Government attache high priority to the provision of all types of special needs housing. It is for local authorities in conjunction with other housing providers to assess current and future housing needs within their areas. It is essential that housing authorities play a major role in the production of social care plans as part of the care in community strategy to assist this process.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the circulars issued by his Department between 1 January 1987 and 31 January 1990 regarding the needs of, and provision for, disabled people in the fields of(a) health, (b) social services, (c) housing, (d) education and (e) transport.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  a. Health and (b) Social Services

  WHC(87)19

  Health Service Development. Review of pre-discharged; of supervision and aftercare arrangements for conditionally discharged restricted patients.

  WHC(87)49

  Revised cost allowances for health buidings and residential accommodation for staff and small mental handicap community units.

  WHC(88)30

  WHC(89)30

  WOC3(88)(l/88)

  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—Implementation of Sections 5 and 6.

  WOC20/87(4/87)

  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986—Implementation of Sections 4, 8(1), 9 and 10.

  WHC(88)57

  Accommodation for people with mental illness.

  WHC(89)9

  Health Building Note 40: Volume 3—Lifts and stairways

  Volume 4—Designing from Disabled People

  WHC(89)23

  Nursing in the Community—a team approach for Wales

  WHC(89)40

  Mental Illness Services: A Strategy for Wales. Submission of 3 year Joint County Plans: 1990/91 to 1992/93.

  WHC(90)1

  Discharge of Patients from Hospital.

  c. Housing

  WOC(24/87) (Paragraph 27)

  Changes of Use of Buildings and other Land: the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

  d. Education

  WOC(54/89)

  Assessment and Statements of Special Educational Needs. Procedures within the Education, Health and Social Services.

  WOC(61/89)

  Special Schools for Pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties.

  e. Transport

  None.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to formulate and implement a disablement strategy for Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has recently consulted health and local authorities and voluntry and professional organisations on a draft circular giving advice on good practice in the provision of services for people with physical and or sensory disabilities. It is intended to publish the final version next month. That will be followed by further guidance when the results of current reviews of existing services and consultation have been analysed.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (I) what basis and information sources he used in reaching his estimate of the increase in the number of elderly people in Wales over the next 20 years; and what research his Department has undertaken to verify this prediction;

  (2) what basis he used in reaching his estimate of the number of very elderly people in Wales over the next 20 years; and what research his Department has undertaken to verify this prediction.
  11
  Mr. Grist
  Annual estimates of the population including age structure are made by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) using:

  (i) the results of the 1981 census;

  (ii) registration of subsequent births and deaths; and

  (iii) estimates of migration derived from electoral rolls, the National Health Service Central Register and the International Passenger Survey.

  National projections produced by the Government Actuary's Department take the OPCS annual estimate as the base and apply assumptions on future mortality, fertility and migration patterns. Such assumptions, developed in consultation with relevant Departments, are described in "Population projections 1987–2027" series PP2 No. 16, OPCS, and a copy is in the Library. Current population projections can only be verified when the results of future censuses become available.

  Business Growth
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications he has received from employers under the business growth training programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Training Agency has received over 3,000 applications to participate in the business growth training programme in Wales.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the position in Wales and Scotland with respect to the responsioilities that employers will have for collecting cash from poll tax defaulters.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Under the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989, a Welsh charging authority that has obtained a liability order from a magistrates court may make an attachment of earnings order. This is an order instructing the debtor's employer to make deductions from the debtor's earnings and pay the amounts deducted to the charging authority. The amounts to be deducted will be specified in the attachment of earnings order. The employer may deduct £1 from the debtor's earnings to cover his administrative costs in respect of each deduction. The employer is required to notify the charging authority if the debtor leaves his employment.

  The position in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask the chairman of the Sports Council for Wales for a report on the reasons why the Commonwealth Games Council for Wales did not institute random drug testing on members of the Welsh team selected for the Auckland Commonwealth games.

  Mr. Grist
  This is a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask the Sports Council for Wales to report to him on the circumstances in which the Commonwealth Games Council for Wales was given a grant of £40,000 towards the cost of sending the Welsh team to the Auckland Commonwealth games.
  12
  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the chairman of the Sports Council for Wales to discuss the most appropriate form of inquiry into the disqualification for drug-taking of medal-winning weightlifters at the Auckland Commonwealth games.

  Mr. Grist
  It is for the Commonwealth Games Federation to set up the procedures to detect misuse of drugs and related substances and for the federation, together with the relevant governing bodies for weightlifting, to impose sanctions against the offenders.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek a report from the Sports Council for Wales on the prevalence of the use of anabolic steroids in sports in Wales receiving public money from the Sports Council.

  Mr. Grist
  The Sports Council for Wales has been providing information to the Welsh Office on the results of its drug-testing programme, covering 57 sports governing bodies since testing began in 1985. No cases of steroid abuse have been detected in Welsh competitors as a result of the tests.

  Health Projects
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce allocations for 1990–91 for health projects under the programme for the valleys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  District health authorities and the University of Wales college of medicine have today been informed that the following allocations are to be made under the programme for the valleys for projects in 1990–91. The allocations are set out in the table. The £9·738 million allocation approved for the coming year represents an increase of over 60 per cent. on the budget for the present financial year and demonstrates a continuing commitment to improving health care provision in the valleys.

  In particular, the allocation to Mid Glamorgan health authority should accelerate the development of a new district general hospital to serve Taff Ely and Rhondda. Subject to the normal detailed approval procedure, a programme for the valleys investment of £8 million over the coming three years is planned towards the total cost of this major development.

  Programme for the Valleys health schemes to be funded in 1990–91 New developments and existing commitments

  DHA/health interest

  Funding 1990–91

  £ million

  ON-GOING PROJECTS

  Gwent

  Ebbw Vale Community Hospital [commitment]

  1·13

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ystrad Fechan Community Hospital [commitment]

  2·4

  Aberdare Elderly Unit [commitment]

  0·2

  Know your Midwife, Rhondda [commitment]

  0·06

  Community Nursing (Valleys) [commitment]

  0·085

  Bargoed Ambulance Station [commitment]

  0·27

  West Glamorgan

  Pontardawe Psychiatric Day Centre [commitment]

  0·11

  13

  DHA/health interest

  Funding 1990–91

  £ million

  UWCM/Mid Glamorgan/Gwent

  Domiciliary Ante-natal Care Project [commitment]

  0·085

  UWCM/Mid Glamorgan

  Myocardial Infarction Project [commitment]

  0·008

  Sub-total of DHA commitments

  4·348

  UWMC

  Teamcare Valleys [commitment]

  0·5

  Sub-total of commitments

  4·848

  NEW PROJECTS

  Mid Glamorgan

  New DGH, Taff Ely/Rhonnda [development]

  2·65

  Improvement to East Glamorgan Hospital [development]

  0·35

  East Dyfed

  Amman Valley Hospital Development [development]

  0·12

  West Glamorgan

  Pontardawe Psychiatric Day Hospital [development]

  0·084

  Gwent

  Child Development Centre for North Gwent [development]

  0·25

  Day Hospital for Chronically Mentally Ill Tredegar [development]

  0·19

  West Glamorgan

  Valleys Communities Dental Health Project [development]

  0·108

  Powys

  Dental Health Project (Upper Swansea Valley) [development]

  0·071

  Mid Glamorgan

  Mobile Dental Clinic for Merthyr Cynon and Rhymney Valleys [development]

  0·033

  West Glamorgan

  Share and Care Scheme, Neath and Port Talbot [development]

  0·002

  Redevelopment of Gellinudd Hospital [development]

  0·680

  Mid Glamorgan

  Project to combat Drug Misuse

  0·05

  Gwent

  Project to combat Drug Misuse

  0·062

  UWCM

  Team Care Valleys [development]

  0·24

  Sub-total of new developments

  4·89

  Total of commitments plus new developments=4·848 + 4·89 =

  9·738

PRIME MINISTER

  Green Currencies
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 25 January,Official Report, column 1047, what are the
  14
  reasons why all green currencies could not be dismantled in 1990; and if she will list the member states which are opposed to such dismantlement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Council of Ministers has agreed that all monetary gaps should be dismantled by the end of 1992 at the latest. Because of the effects of very large devaluations on prices, public expenditure and the rate of inflation, it has been generally accepted Community practice that large monetary gaps should be dismantled in stages. Reflecting this, the Commission has not proposed the complete elimination of monetary gaps in 1990, and a majority of member states could be expected to resist such a proposal.

  African National Congress
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to her reply about the African National Congress to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton on 16 January,Official Report, column 160, whether the African National Congress has since that reply removed what she referred to as an ambiguity; and whether, in the light of developments since that reply, she continues to regard the African National Congress as a terrorist organisation.

  The Prime Minister
  We have welcomed the South African Government's decision to lift the bans on the African National Congress and other political organisations. We look to them to make a correspondingly positive response. As yet, the ANC has not committed itself unambiguously to the pursuit of a peaceful solution to South Africa's problems through negotiation. We continue to urge it to do so.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Civil Service
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of
  the Exchequer what has been the increase or decrease in(a) the work undertaken by the Civil Service and (b) the number of civil servants (i) since 1974 and (ii) since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information on workload changes is not available in the form requested. However, it is estimated that, between 1979 and 1988, the workload for new and existing activities increased by the equivalent of 85,000 posts. This was, of course, more than fully offset by efficiency improvements and cost-effective transfers outside the Civil Service.

  The changes in the number of civil servants are as follows:

  (i) 692,036 at 1 April 19744

  (ii) 732,275 at 1 April 1979, an increase of 40,239 (5·8 per cent.))

  (iii) 565,075 at 1 October 1989, a decrease of 167,200 (22·8 per cent.

  Inland Revenue Documents
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many different standard forms, letters and notices are currently being used by the Inland Revenue; and if he will list the 20 most frequently used of these documents, and the approximate annual usage of each of these.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue has approximately 8,200 different forms, notices and so on in use, of which
  15
  2,500 are used in correspondence with persons outside the Department. The 20 external documents most frequently used are as follows:

  Form

  Type

  Approximate annual usage (millions)

  P3(T)

  PAYE Coding Notes

  28·0

  P2(T)

  PAYE Coding Notice

  26·0

  P46

  Notification: new employee

  19·0

  Tax Return

  Notes: simple profit statement insert

  16·4

  P30B(Z)

  Payslip

  16·0

  PH

  PAYE Working Sheet

  1·50

  P14

  Statement of employee's pay etc

  15·0

  300 Coda

  Schedule D assessment

  14·7

  MIRAS 70

  Application to pay mortgage interest under the MIRAS Scheme

  14·0

  P15

  Employee's PAYE coding claim

  13·0

  P45

  Employee's leaving certificate

  11·5

  11 Notes

  Tax Return: Notes

  11·2

  P6(T)

  Employers PAYE coding notification

  8·5

  64D

  Schedule D assessment: Notes

  7·2

  64

  Appeal notification

  6·7

  P1

  Tax Return: employee earning below £8,500

  6·5

  P1 Notes

  Tax Return Notes employee earning below £8,500

  6·5

  11

  Tax Return—self employed taxpayer

  5·7

  P70(T)

  Schedule E assessment

  5·6

  11P

  Tax Return—employee

  5·5

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total tax yield from the tax on workplace nurseries for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  There is no separate tax on workplace nurseries. I regret that information on which to base a reliable estimate of the tax liability on the benefit of subsidised workplace nurseries provided by employers is not available.

  CBI
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be addressing the CBI annual dinner on 17 May this year.

  Banks (Third World Debts)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current policy of the Inland Revenue in relation to the tax treatment of United Kingdom banks which make provision against Third world debt.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current policy of the Inland Revenue in relation to the tax treatment of United Kingdom banks which make provision against Third world debt.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue operates the test laid down by law. This provides tax relief to the extent that the principal is estimated to be irrecoverable.

  Income Tax
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any recent representations about the level of income tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a large number of representations regarding the level of income tax.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many bands of marginal income tax rates exist in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) other Group of Seven countries and (c) other EEC countries.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Country

  Number of bands of income tax rates

  (a) United Kingdom

  2

  (b) Other Group of Seven countries

  Canada

  3

  France

  12

  Germany

  2,119

  Italy

  7

  Japan

  5

  United States of America

  2

  (c) Other EEC countries

  Belgium

  7

  Denmark

  3

  Greece

  9

  Ireland

  3

  Luxembourg

  24

  Netherlands

  3

  Portugal

  5

  Spain

  16

  Notes:

  1. The figures given refer to the bands of national income tax rates only. In some countries additional local income tax is imposed.

  2. In Germany there is no system of tax bands: rates rise gradually from 19 per cent. to 53 per cent. according to a 2,119-stage table.

  3. In the United States of America there is an additional intermediate income tax rate band for some taxpayers.

  4. The figure given for Belgium applies to taxpayers with an income of over £10,873 (at the latest available purchasing power parity). For income below this amount a tax table of gradually increasing rates is used.

  Building Society Accounts
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many building society accounts are subject to the composite rate; how many of these would be wholly liable to tax in the absence of the composite rate system; how many would not be liable for tax at all; and how much tax each group pays.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that information of this kind distinguishing accounts held by building societies is not readily available.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals are currently receiving mortgage interest tax relief; what were the comparable figures for 1973–74, 1978–79, 1983–84, 1988–89 and 1989–90; and what is the current cost to the Exchequer.
  17
  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates of the numbers of tax units receiving mortgage interest relief in the years requested are as follows:

  Million

  1973–74

  4·5

  1978–79

  5·6

  1983–84

  7·5

  1988–89

  9·1

  1989–90

  9·3

  The cost of providing mortgage interest relief in 1989–90 is estimated to be £7 billion.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the levels of mortgage interest tax relief; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the ceiling on mortgage tax relief; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations concerning the levels of mortgage interest tax relief.

  Company Car Parks
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) how much revenue would be raised if company car parks in inner London were taxed as a benefit in kind; and what information he has on the income distribution of the people affected;

  (2) how much revenue would be raised if company parking spaces were taxed as a benefit in kind in all major cities in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the income distribution of those people affected.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Tax
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the points on the income scale for a single man with the standard allowance at which the combined national insurance and marginal rates alter and those rates.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information for 1989–90 is given in the table. The calculations use the class 1 national insurance contribution rates introduced in October 1989.

  Levels of income at which the marginal rate of income tax and national insurance contributions of a single person1 changes, 1989–90

  Weekly Income

  Marginal rate of income tax and national insurance contributions2

  £

  per cent

  43·00

  9

  53·56

  34

  325·00

  25

  451·63

  40

  1 Assumed to be non-aged with no reliefs or allowances other than the single person's allowance.

  2 Class 1 national insurance contributions for an employee contracted in to the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS).

  18
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the overall revenue from taxation plus national insurance contributions in cash terms, real terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product both including oil and excluding oil in each year since 1978–79 and in each five-year period working back from the present for as much of the last 30 years as possible.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Such information as is readily available is included on the CSO database in the follow:ing series (identified by their database code):

  GTEA: total general Government revenue from taxes, social security contributions and royalties

  ABLG: total North sea taxes

  CAOB: GDP (a) at market prices

  DJDT: implied GDP (at market prices) deflator

  The database can be accessed on-line by the House of Commons library.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the regional distribution of(a) the personal tax burden and (b) the overall tax burden.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that estimates of total personal taxes and total taxes are not made on a regional basis. However, in 1987–88 the regional distribution of income tax liabilities is estimated to have been as follows:

  Region

  Amount of income tax liability of residents

  (£ billion)

  North

  1·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  3·3

  North West

  4·3

  East Midlands

  2·5

  West Midlands

  3·6

  East Anglia

  1·6

  South East

  18·4

  South West

  3·5

  Wales

  1·5

  Scotland

  3·4

  Northern Ireland

  0·8

  Members of Her Majesty's forces and the Merchant Navy are excluded.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer of(a) a 1 per cent. increase in mortgage lending rates, (b) the cumulative cost since mortgage rates began to rise in June 1988 up to the end of 1989–90 and (c) the estimated cost for 1990–91.

  Mr. Lilley
  An increase of 1 percentage point in the current level of mortgage interest rates would increase the annual cost of mortgage interest relief by about £550 million. The estimated additional cost of mortgage interest relief, resulting from the increases in mortgage interest rates above their 10 per cent. level of June 1988, will be £2·4 billion by the end of 1989–90. This cost will to a large extent be offset by an increase in the tax yield on interest from deposits. The cost of relief in 1990–91 will depend on the levels of borrowing and interest rates.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of increasing all personal allowances by the current increase in average earnings of 9·25 per cent.
  19
  Mr. Lilley
  At 1990–91 levels of income, the direct revenue cost in a full year of increasing all personal allowances by 9·25 per cent. on their 1989–90 levels is estimated to be about £2,240 million. The additional cost of increasing the basic rate limit by 9·25 per cent. is about £430 million in a full year. The costs falling in 1990–91 would be £1,720 million and £250 million respectively. Estimates are based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes and are provisional.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies currently provide nursery vouchers; and how much money is raised from taxing these as a benefit in kind.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the level of corporation tax in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I have received a number of representations concerning the level of corporation tax in the United Kingdom.

  Construction Companies
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual increase in net income of large construction companies between 1974 and 1979, and since 1979, after deducting from net income as defined in his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on 15 January,Official Report, column 97, either actual or estimated amounts for both tax and employers' national insurance contributions.

  1979

  1980

  19811

  1982

  1983

  1984

  19852

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Office Copy Register

  0·75

  0·63

  0·75

  0·70

  0·66

  0·63

  0·60

  Office Copy Filed Plan

  0·75

  0·63

  0·75

  0·70

  0·66

  0·63

  0·60

  Search of the Index Map

  1·00

  0·84

  1·50

  1·40

  1·33

  1·27

  1·20

  1 From 1 April 1981.

  2 To 31 May 1985.

  Since June 1985 there has been no direct charge for these pre-contract inquiries. From 2 April 1990 charges will be reintroduced for those items as follows, with constant price equivalents shown in brackets:

  Office Copy Register

  £12·00 (£5·54).

  Office Copy Filed Plan

  Search of the Index Map £6·00 (£2·77).

  Dr. K. Siddiqui
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the decision not to prosecute Dr. K. Siddiqui under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions gave very careful consideration to all evidence made available to him, including video evidence, concerning the remarks and actions of Dr. Siddiqui at a public meeting at Manchester city hall on 21 October 1989,
  20
  Mr. Major
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: Based on figures extracted from published accounts, the average annual increase in net income in nominal terms for large construction companies after deducting tax (both United Kingdom and overseas) was 24·3 per cent. between accounting years 1974 and 1979 and 8·4 per cent. between accounting years 1979 and 1988. Employers' national insurance contributions will already have been deducted in the calculation of net income. The underlying figures are published in the MA3 series of business monitors "Company Finance".

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Shops Act 1950
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions have been brought for breaches of the Shops Act 1950 since the recent judgment of the European Court; and if he will name the local authorities concerned.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on 29 January 1990 at column 13.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General what were the charges for a land registry search when purchasing or selling domestic property for each of the years since 1979 at constant prices.

  The Attorney-General
  Pre-completion official searches of the register with priority have attracted no fee during the period. Pre-contract inquiries attracted the fees set out in the table in the financial years indicated. The first column (1979) indicates the actual fee in that year. The following columns show the comparable fees by reference to constant prices based on the 1979 fees.

  and he instructed leading counsel to advise him with regard to any criminal liability, especially for incitement to murder. The Director concluded that the evidence was insufficient to render it appropriate to institute criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, the Director regards as a matter of extreme gravity any conduct on the part of any person within this jurisdiction which does amount to the offence of incitement to murder. It will remain his policy, with my full agreement, to deal accordingly with evidence establishing such conduct that may be placed before him.

HEALTH

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's assessment of preventable loss arising within the Department in the year 1988–89 is nil. Internal management and financial control procedures are under continuous scrutiny to ensure, as far as possible, that no preventable loss arises.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss-prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to give an answer in the form requested as the Department does not employ a specific class of loss-prevention officers. There is a general exhortation to all staff to take proper care of property and services for which they are responsible and for line managers to ensure that there is sound management of such resources. Internal audit procedures are undertaken by staff with appropriate training and security guard services are provided by a mixture of departmental staff and private companies.

  Eye Surgery, Rochdale
  Sir Cyril Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time in the Rochdale health authority for eye operations; how many persons are awaiting such surgery; and how many of those persons are over the age of 75 years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information about the age and specific medical condition of patients on hospital waiting lists is not collected centrally. The latest available information about numbers of persons awaiting treatment in the ophthalmology specialty is given in the table.

  In-patient waiting list, Ophthalmology specialty. Rochdale District Health Authority, as at 31 March 1989

  Patients waiting

  Percentage breakdown by months waiting

  0–2

  3–5

  6–8

  9–11

  12+

  860

  21

  21

  14

  14

  31

  Source: KHO7 return.

  The percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has any evidence of general practitioners refusing to take groups of disabled people who are residents leaving long-stay hospital on to their lists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no such evidence and I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 February at column 769.

  Practice Nurses
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ratio of practice nurses per head of population his Department recommends in order for general practitioners to carry out all the services indicated in the new contracts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not plan to recommend norms for the employment of practice nurses. The extent to which general practitioners employ practice nurses and other types of health care professional staff to carry out services under the new contract is essentially a matter for local decision.

  Personal Data
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of staff in his Department have been disciplined for breaching internal regulations on the disclosure of personal data held by his Department within the last five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  No cases have occurred since 1 April 1989 when Department of Health records began. Records on any cases before this date are held by the Department of Social Security.

  New Hospitals
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out in detail the mechanism by which health authorities will be able to calculate the capital contribution from central Government sources that will apply to any new hospital project in advance of making their detailed submission and explain how he intends to ensure that the price of land on sale or on purchase does not distort the planning in health provision.

  Mr. Freeman
  Capital planning is carried out on the basis of the best resource assumptions available. It is necessary to plan flexibly to cope with unavoidable uncertainties, and order schemes to match service priorities. Detailed approval in principle submissions are made on this basis.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state what further representations he has received from hospitals to opt out of the existing National Health Service management structure.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The proposals in the White Papers, "Working for Patients" and "Caring for Patients", and the NHS and Community Care Bill suggest wide ranging changes in the way the whole NHS is managed. Since May last year, a total of 190 units have expressed an interest in NHS trust status, including a number with more than one hospital. The units are as follows:

  Northern RHA

  Aycliffe Hospital and Mental Handicap Services

  Blood Transfusion Service (Northern RHA)

  Darlington Hospital and Community Services

  Freeman Hospital, Newcastle

  Hartlepool District

  Mental Illness Services in Gateshead

  Newcastle General Hospital

  Newcastle Mental Health Services

  Northumbrian Ambulance Service

  23

  Northgate Hospital

  North Tyneside District

  North West Durham hospital and community services

  South West Durham Community Services

  Yorkshire RHA

  Bradford Acute Services

  Bradford—Psychiatric Unit Hospital Trust

  Calderdale Hospitals, Calderdale HA

  Leeds General Infirmary and associated Hospitals

  Grimsby DGH and associated services

  High Royds Hospital Mental Health Services, Leeds Western

  St. James's University Hospital, Leeds

  Seacroft and Killingbeck Hospitals, Leeds Eastern

  Wakefield District—Mental Health Unit

  Wharfedale General Hospital, Leeds Western

  Trent RHA

  Bassetlaw

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital

  Lincolnshire Ambulance Service

  Nether Edge Hospital, Sheffield

  Northern General Hospital, Sheffield

  University Hospital, Nottingham

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

  Children's Hospital, Sheffield

  South Lincolnshire Mental Handicap Services

  East Anglian RHA

  East Suffolk Community Services

  East Suffolk Psychiatric Services

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney Priority Services

  Newmarket General Hospital

  Norfolk Ambulances

  Peterborough DGH, Edith Cavell DGH, Stamford and Rutland Hospital

  West Norfolk and Wisbech Acute Services

  West Norfolk and Wisbech Community Services

  North West Thames RHA

  Central Middlesex Hospital

  East Hertfordshire Acute Services Unit

  East Hertfordshire Priority and Community Services Units

  Harefield Hospital

  Hillingdon Hospital

  Mount Vernon Hospital

  North Hertfordshire Acute and Community Services

  North West Hertfordshire Priority Services Unit

  Northwick Park Hospital

  Westminster and Westminster Children's Hospitals

  North East Thames RHA

  Basildon and Thurrock HA

  Brentwood Community Hospital

  Central North London Mental Health Unit

  The London Hospital Group

  Mid Essex Acute Unit

  The Royal Free Hospital

  North Middlesex Hospital

  Royal London Homeopathic Hospital

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  The Royal National Throat Nose and Ear Hospital

  City and Hackney (St. Bart's, Homerton and St. Marks Hospital Trust

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital

  St. Margaret's Hospital, Epping

  St. Peter's Group of Hospitals

  Southend District Services

  Tavistock and Portman Clinics

  Harwich Hospital

  North East Essex Acute Unit

  North East Essex Mental Handicap Unit

  North East Essex Mental Health Unit

  Waltham Forest Mental Health Unit

  Waltham Forest HA

  West Essex Priority Care Services

  South East Thames RHA

  Bexley HA—Mental Health Community Services

  Brighton Acute Services

  Bromley Acute Services

  24

  King's/Camberwell and associated Community Services

  Conquest Hospital, Hastings HA

  Dartford and Gravesham HA—Proposed DGH

  Eastbourne Acute Services

  Guy's (and Lewisham Hospitals and associated MI Services)

  Lewisham and North Southwark HA—Mental Illness Services

  Lewisham Hospital Unit

  Maidstone DGH

  Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup + Erith and District Hospital + Community

  Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead

  St. Thomas' Hospital (and associated Community Services)

  Sevenoaks Hospital

  South East Kent HA—Community Services

  South East Thames RHA Commercial Services Directorate

  Tunbridge Wells Mental Handicap Unit

  West Lambeth HA—Priority Care Unit

  William Harvey and Buckland Hospitals—South East Kent HA

  South West Thames RHA

  Croydon Community Unit

  Croydon Mental Handicap Unit

  Croydon HA—Mental Illness Unit

  East Surrey HA—Acute and Community Services Unit

  East Surrey HA—Combined MI/Mental Handicap Unit

  Kingston Hospital

  Mid Downs East Unit

  Mid Downs West Unit

  Mid Surrey General Unit

  Mid Surrey HA—Mental Illness Unit

  North West Surrey HA—Acute Unit

  North West Surrey HA—Mental Handicap and Mental Health Units

  St. George's Group Trust, Wandsworth HA

  St. Helier and Sutton Hospitals

  South West Surrey Acute Unit

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals, Worthing HA

  Weybridge Hospital

  Wessex RHA

  Bournemouth Acute Unit, East Dorset HA

  Christchurch Hospital, East Dorset HA

  Lymington Hospitals

  Mental Health Services, East Dorset HA

  North West Wiltshire Community Service, Bath HA

  Psychiatric Division, Basingstoke HA

  Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases

  Swindon HA—All District Services

  Treloar Chase Unit, Basingstoke HA

  West Dorset Community and General Hospital Services

  West Dorset Mental Health Services

  Oxford RHA

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre

  South Western RHA

  Avon College of Health

  Bristol

  Bristol Paediatric Services

  Bristol Homoeopathic Hospital

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  Cornwall Mental Handicap Services

  Cornwall Community Services

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals

  East Somerset

  Exeter Community Services

  North Devon

  Plymouth Acute Services

  Supplies Function—Regionwide (South Western RHA)

  South Devon Health Care Trust

  West Cornwall [Acute Services]

  Weston (Unit, Bristol and Weston HA)

  West Somerset Acute and Community Unit

  Wonford Acute Services

  West Midlands RHA

  Alexandra Hospital

  Bridgnorth Cottage Hospital (incl. community) (Shropshire)

  Bromsgrove Community Unit (Bromsgrove and Redditch)

  25

  Mid Staffordshire Community Unit

  Coventry and Warwick Hospitals (incl. Paybody) (Coventry)

  Ellesmere Cottage Hospital (Shropshire)

  Good Hope DGH/Northcroft/Jaffray/Community (North Birmingham)

  [Hayley Green Hospital (Dudley) (Withdrawn 26 June 1989)]

  Highcroft, Mental Illness Hospital (North Birmingham)

  Lady Forrester Cottage Hospital (Much Wenlock, Shropshire)

  Walsall Acute Services [Manor DGH]

  Oswestry and District Hospital (incl. Community) (Shropshire)

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital (Shropshire)

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital (South Birmingham)

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital (Shropshire)

  Rugby District Services

  Mid Staffordshire Mental Health Unit [St. George's Hospital]

  St. Margaret's, Mental Handicap Hospital (Walsall)

  Walsgrave DGH, Coventry

  Mersey RHA

  Arrowe Park and Clatterbridge Hospitals

  Broadgreen Hospital, exc. Mersey Regional Cardio-Thoracic Unit

  Cranage Hall, Crewe

  Crewe, Psychiatric and Community Services '

  Halton, combined Hospital and Community Services

  Halton Community Services

  Leighton Hospital, Crewe (Acute Services)

  Liverpool Community Health Services

  Liverpool Dental Hospital

  Liverpool Mental Health Services

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Services

  Regional Adult Cardio-Thoracic Unit (RACTU), Liverpool

  Macclesfield Community and Mental Handicap Services

  Macclesficld DGH (Acute Services)

  Macclesfield Mental Health Services

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital (Alder Hey)

  Royal Liverpool Hospital

  St. Helens and Knowsley Community Health Services

  Southport DGH (Acute Services)

  Southport and Form by Psychiatric/Community Services

  Walton and Fazakerley Hospitals, South Sefton

  Warrington DGH

  Whiston and St. Helen's Hospital

  Wirral Community and Support Hospitals

  North Western RHA

  Christie Hospital [South Manchester HA]

  Central Manchester Hospital and Community Services

  Royal Preston Hospital, Preston HA

  South Manchester HA Community Unit

  Stepping Hill Hospital + Stockport Infirmary, Stockport HA

  Wrightington Hospital, West Lancashire HA

  SHA

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Health if he will publish the agendas, papers and lists of participants for the meetings organised by his Department on the subject of National Health Service trusts on 23–24 October, 14–15 December and 22–23 January.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Income Generation Unit
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in the past year on the work of the income generation unit.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Hospital Attendance (Funding)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about funding arrangements for patients in Denton and Reddish who wish to attend hospitals in Manchester rather than Stockport or Tameside.

  Mr. Freeman
  General practitioners in Denton and Reddish, as elsewhere, are able without restriction to refer patients to consultants working in hospitals in Manchester and no funds are transferred between district health authorities as a result. Special financial arrangements have been made over access to the regional health authority funded lithotripter service in south Manchester.

  Nurseries
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children attend private and public nurseries; and what is the income distribution of their parents.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information available centrally about the total provision relates to the number of places in local authority and in registered voluntary and private day nurseries. This information is published annually in "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March", copies of which are available in the Library. No information is available centrally about the income of parents.

  Foster Care
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has proposals for changes in the foster care system specifically aimed at putting an end to the high incidence of child abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Foster parents are a valuable community resource who at times have to look after very difficult children. They need adequate support and supervision. The small numbers of recent tragic cases does not lead us to believe that the incidence of child abuse by foster parents is high. The regulatory framework has been tightened up with the introduction of the Boarding Out of Children (Foster Placement) Regulations 1988, which came into force on 1 June 1989. Copies of the regulations can be found in the Library. Implementation of the Children Act will be accompanied by new regulations arid guidance to local authorities on a number of foster care issues.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths occurred in 1989 which were attributed to food poisoning.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provisional number of deaths for which food poisoning' was stated as the underlying cause in England and Wales in the first nine months of 1989 was 40.

  1International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, codes 003 and 005.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications he has received for the establishment of fund-holding practices from general practitioners' practices in Leeds.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Formal applications cannot be made until there is legislative provision for fund holding. Practices have been invited to return forms to their RHAs registering their interest in fund holding. We do not have details of the numbers of interested practices in individual FPCs.

  Paramedic Skills
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are trained nationally in paramedic skills to the National Health Service training authority standard; and how many to the National Health Service modular scheme standard.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are about 2,000 ambulance staff who hold the full NHSTA Certificate in Extended Training. In addition there are another 2,000 staff who have either received extended training on some of the three NHSTA modular or under local training schemes.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the qualitative differences between the two National Health Service standards of paramedic training for ambulance staff

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The National Health Service training authority certificate is the only national training standard for paramedics. Some authorities have elected to train in one or two of the three training authority modules, for example, cardiac care, and others provide training to local standards.

  Ambulance Workers
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish statistics for the levels of stress and the mortality rate of(a) the ambulance workers' profession and (b) the national average.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held by the Department. General responsibility for the recording of incidents of occupationally induced injuries and diseases resulting in absences of more than three days duration rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  General Practice Formularies
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that general practice formularies should originate with the individual practices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  General practice formularies will be voluntary and will be organised in the way most suited to local circumstances. It will be for general practitioners individually to determine the degree of compliance where they adopt a formulary. Whilst we expect that many formularies will be practice based, there is nothing to prevent a group of practices or an FPC developing a common formulary should they wish.

  Prescription Products
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to ensure that all new prescription products are made available to patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject only to the provisions of the selected list scheme, doctors will continue to be able to prescribe any drugs, including new drugs, that they consider to be necessary for a patient's treatment.

  AIDS
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of his Department on AIDS and the work of the AIDS unit within his Department.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) on 23 November at column 11, the Department published the Government's response to the report from the Social Services Committee on AIDS (Cm. 925). That sets out the strategy which we have adopted to meet the challenge of AIDS. The AIDS unit is a multidisciplinary team of officials within the Department who work on HIV infection and AIDS.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to implement the Montreal charter on the universal rights of people living with HIV disease agreed at the World Health Organisation conference in June 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have endorsed all the official resolutions of the conference on AIDS organised in Montreal by the World Health Organisation. These do not include the charter to which the hon. Member refers. The strategy which the Government have adopted to meet the challenge of AIDS is set out in our response to the report from the Social Services Committee on AIDS (Cm. 925).

  Hertfordshire FPC
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from the chairman of the Hertfordshire family practitioner committee about the circumstances surrounding the removal of 16 patients in the last three weeks from the list of Doctor Mir of Prestwick road, Watford.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) on 30 January at column 130. The administration of the contract of service of general medical practitioners in Hertfordshire is a matter for the Hertfordshire family practitioner committee, 14 Parliament square, Hertford, SG14 1ED.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the average and (b) the range of expenditure per patient in each family practitioner committee.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 29 January 1990]: Family practitioner committees manage expenditure on all

  29
  four family practitioner services; the general medical, dental and opthalmic services, and the pharmaceutical service. The aggregate expenditure on these in each FPC in 1988–89, expressed as the total of payments per 10,000 registered population, is set out in the table. Information about the range of expenditure per patient, within each FPC and for all services, is not collected.

  FPC

  FPS payments in £000s/10,000 Registered Population (1988–89)

  Cleveland

  904·9

  Cumbria

  943·0

  Durham

  903·4

  Northumberland

  929·6

  Gateshead

  874·9

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  899·3

  North Tyneside

  955·6

  South Tyneside

  883·3

  Sunderland

  905·8

  Humberside

  896·4

  North Yorkshire

  932·1

  Bradford

  883·9

  Calderdale

  891·5

  Kirklees

  828·4

  Leeds

  937·3

  Wakefield

  962·3

  Derbyshire

  847·6

  Leicestershire

  819·0

  Lincolnshire

  958·8

  Nottinghamshire

  816·3

  Barnsley

  904·4

  Doncaster

  925·8

  Rotherham

  809·4

  Sheffield

  905·9

  Cambridgeshire

  838·9

  Norfolk

  968·2

  Suffolk

  918·8

  Bedfordshire

  801·0

  Hertfordshire

  864·3

  Barnet

  762·0

  Brent and Harrow

  757·6

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  734·0

  Hillingdon

  797·8

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  804·6

  Essex

  851·0

  Barking and Havering

  777·7

  Camden and Islington

  808·9

  City and East London

  829·1

  Enfield and Haringey

  684·1

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  803·4

  East Sussex

  942·8

  Kent

  853·6

  Greenwich and Bexley

  796·6

  Bromley

  793·6

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  732·0

  Surrey

  800·5

  West Sussex

  919·1

  Croydon

  795·4

  Kingston and Richmond

  849·0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  760·5

  Dorset

  982·1

  Hampshire

  866·9

  Wiltshire

  836·4

  Isle of Wight

  1,000·8

  Berkshire

  825·2

  Buckinghamshire

  812·6

  Northamtonshire

  818·7

  Oxfordshire

  845·3

  Avon

  843·5

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  984·2

  Devon

  970·0

  Gloucestershire

  888·1

  Somerset

  917·5

  Hereford and Worcester

  834·7

  30

  FPC

  FPS payments in £000s/10,000 Registered Population (1988–89)

  Shropshire

  886·3

  Staffordshire

  834·8

  Warkwickshire

  855·4

  Birmingham

  905·4

  Coventry

  895·3

  Dudley

  789·7

  Sandwell

  943·6

  Solihull

  875·2

  Walsall

  949·5

  Wolverhampton

  874·4

  Cheshire

  883·4

  Liverpool

  1,005·1

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  926·4

  Sefton

  897·6

  Wirral

  949·0

  Lancashire

  922·5

  Bolton

  852·9

  Bury

  935·2

  Manchester

  988·4

  Oldham

  860·9

  Rochdale

  895·6

  Salford

  1,024·8

  Stockport

  908·3

  Tameside

  930·3

  Trafford

  944·7

  Wigan

  930·3

  ENGLAND

  868·7

  Notes: Gross payments for general medical, dental, and ophthalmic services, and the pharmaceutical service, inclusive of superannuation contributions but net of patient charges, in thousands of fs per 10,000 registered population.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UNESCO
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish the report of the proceedings at the recent biennial general conference of UNESCO; what organisations in Britain he is consulting; when he expects to publish his assessment of the conference; and whether he will make it his policy to consult(a) the United Nations Association of Great Britain and (b) the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House before coming to any conclusions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  UNESCO has just adopted a new medium term plan for the period 1990–95 and a programme and budget for the period 1990–91. These documents provide us with our first real opportunity to assess what progress the organisation has made since we left it in 1985. We will therefore now be making a detailed review of UNESCO with a view to deciding what our future relationship with the organisation should be. As part of this review we will be consulting a wide range of bodies with interests in the educational, scientific and cultural fields covered by UNESCO's mandate, The United Nations Association will be one of the organisations consulted. A final decision will be announced after we have considered all the evidence. We understand that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House intends to conduct hearings in early March on our policy towards UNESCO.

  African Elephant
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional measures he intends to take to enhance elephant protection schemes in those African countries currently receiving assistance from Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The position remains as stated in the answer that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development gave the hon. Member on 29 November 1989. We remain willing to consider any new requests for help.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of other Governments concerning the implementation of the United Nations declaration No. 261.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of India to implement the United Nations resolution calling for a referendum in the disputed territories of Jammu and Kashmir.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Britain voted in favour of the various United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. Much has happened since, including the 1972 Simla agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. We believe that the status of Kashmir can be settled only by agreement between the two sides.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We have made clear in our regular contacts with the Indian and Pakistani Governments that we believe that the status of Kashmir can be settled only by agreement between the two sides. We have also made it clear that we have no sympathy with those who espouse violence for political ends.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made concerning civil rights in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In our recent contacts with the Indian Government we have recognised the serious problems of violence they face in Jammu and Kashmir, and expressed our hope that they will deal with the situation with restraint. We have also made clear that we have no sympathy with those who espouse violence for political ends.

  Foreign Aid
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs further to his answer in the Official Report, 31 January, column 190, what funds are included under the heading United Kingdom gross bilateral aid.
  32
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Gross bilateral aid comprises financial and technical co-operation provided to recipient countries on a government-to-government basis for agreed projects and programmes, investments by the Commonwealth Development Corporation, support for British institutions concerned with overseas development, including support for the voluntary agencies working overseas, food aid and humanitarian assistance, and aid debt relief.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the last five years (a) the flows of aid from the United Kingdom to (i) Argentina, (ii) Brazil, (iii) Colombia, (iv) El Salvador, (v) Mexico, (vi) Nicaragua, (vii) Panama and (viii) all remaining South American nations and (b) the proportions in each case of this aid tied to trade deals involving United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The answer is as follows:

  Gross bilateral aid 1984–1988

  £ thousand

  Of which ATP

  ATP as per cent.

  LATIN AMERICA

  1984

  Bolivia

  1,182

  —

  —

  Brazil

  7,780

  6,279

  80·71

  Chile

  257

  —

  —

  Colombia

  460

  5

  1·03

  Costa Rica

  1,666

  —

  —

  Cuba

  —

  —

  —

  Dominican Republic

  61

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  916

  —

  —

  El Salvador

  205

  —

  —

  Guatemala

  —

  —

  —

  Haiti

  8

  —

  —

  Honduras

  3,446

  —

  —

  Mexico

  517

  —

  —

  Nicaragua

  9

  —

  —

  Panama

  49

  —

  —

  Paraguay

  207

  125

  6008

  Peru

  476

  18

  3·81

  Uruguay

  14

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  17,255

  6,427

  37·25

  1985

  Bolivia

  1,421

  —

  —

  Brazil

  4,014

  3,417

  85·13

  Chile

  334

  —

  —

  Colombia

  838

  148

  17·17

  Costa Rica

  12,685

  —

  —

  Cuba

  —

  —

  —

  Dominican Republic

  24

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  909

  —

  —

  El Salvador

  103

  —

  —

  Guatemala

  —

  —

  —

  Haiti

  3

  —

  —

  Honduras

  3,653

  —

  —

  Mexico

  773

  —

  —

  Nicaragua

  116

  —

  —

  Panama

  67

  —

  —

  Paraguay

  51

  —

  —

  Peru

  928

  148

  15·95

  Uruguay

  7

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  25,926

  3,713

  14·17

  1986

  Bolivia

  1,953

  —

  —

  Brazil

  880

  213

  24·26

  Chile

  373

  —

  —

  33

  Of which ATP

  ATP as per cent.

  Colombia

  1,018

  5

  0·45

  Costa Rica

  10,038

  —

  —

  Cuba

  —

  —

  —

  Dominican Republic

  42

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  836

  —

  —

  El Salvador

  239

  —

  —

  Guatemala

  10

  —

  —

  Haiti

  331

  —

  —

  Honduras

  1,258

  —

  —

  Mexico

  803

  —

  —

  Nicaragua

  86

  —

  —

  Panama

  70

  —

  —

  Paraguay

  221

  —

  —

  Peru

  1,214

  235

  19·40

  Uruguay

  13

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  10

  —

  —

  Total

  19,395

  453

  2·34

  1987

  Bolivia

  1,748

  —

  —

  Brazil

  766

  —

  —

  Chile

  261

  —

  —

  Colombia

  762

  —

  —

  Costa Rica

  2,772

  —

  —

  Cuba

  —

  —

  —

  Dominican Republic

  34

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  2,560

  —

  —

  El Salvador

  411

  —

  —

  Guatemala

  1

  —

  —

  Haiti

  7

  —

  —

  Honduras

  811

  —

  —

  Mexico

  630

  —

  —

  Nicaragua

  —

  —

  —

  Panama

  72

  —

  —

  Paraguay

  277

  —

  —

  Peru

  1,012

  85

  8·36

  Uruguay

  38

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  24

  —

  —

  Total

  12,186

  85

  0·70

  1988

  Bolivia

  2,953

  —

  —

  Brazil

  1,443

  —

  —

  Chile

  306

  —

  —

  Colombia

  1,822

  434

  23·80

  Costa Rica

  1,550

  —

  —

  Cuba

  2

  —

  —

  Dominican Republic

  114

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  1,515

  —

  —

  El Salvador

  154

  —

  —

  Guatemala

  4

  —

  —

  Haiti

  9

  —

  —

  Honduras

  1,212

  —

  —

  Mexico

  1,249

  —

  —

  Nicaragua

  180

  —

  —

  Panama

  988

  854

  86·48

  Paraguay

  497

  —

  —

  Peru

  1,363

  —

  —

  Uruguay

  18

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  10

  —

  —

  Total

  15,390

  1,288

  8·37

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretry of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the last five years (a) the flows of aid from the United Kingdom to (i) Algeria, (ii) Chad, (iii) Egypt, (iv) Nigeria, (v) Sudan and (vi) all remaining north and western African nations, listing those classified under this grouping and (b) the proportions in each case of this aid tied to trade deals involving United Kingdom companies.
  34
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The answer is as follows:

  Gross bilateral aid 1984–1988

  of which

  ATP

  ATP as percentage

  1984

  West and North Africa and Mediterranean

  Algeria

  14

  —

  —

  Benin

  166

  —

  —

  Burkina Faso

  120

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  5,605

  —

  —

  Cape Verdi Islands

  16

  —

  —

  Central African Republic

  29

  —

  —

  Chad

  31

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  368

  —

  —

  Egypt

  15,404

  2,483

  16·12

  Equatorial Guinea

  14

  —

  —

  Gabon

  5

  —

  —

  Gambia

  3,638

  —

  —

  Ghana

  3,765

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  Guinea

  89

  —

  —

  Guinea-Bissau

  16

  —

  —

  Israel

  —

  —

  —

  Ivory Coast

  1,624

  —

  —

  Jordan

  6,105

  3,440

  56·35

  Lebanon

  34

  —

  —

  Liberia

  1,536

  —

  —

  Mali

  533

  —

  —

  Malta

  91

  —

  —

  Mauritania

  387

  —

  —

  Morocco

  208

  —

  —

  Niger

  79

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  5,584

  —

  —

  Oman

  570

  —

  —

  Portugal

  561

  —

  —

  Senegal

  356

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  2,858

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  Syria

  568

  —

  —

  Togo

  94

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  2,162

  —

  —

  Turkey

  407

  —

  —

  West Bank and Gaza

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  53,038

  5,923

  11·17

  1985

  Algeria

  96

  —

  —

  Benin

  187

  —

  —

  Burkina Faso

  276

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  7,460

  145

  1·94

  Cape Verde Islands

  27

  —

  —

  Central African Republic

  38

  —

  —

  Chad

  1,448

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  606

  —

  —

  Egypt

  19,101

  2,251

  11·79

  Equatorial Guinea

  —

  —

  —

  Gabon

  14

  —

  —

  Gambia

  3,613

  —

  —

  Ghana

  11,683

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  Guinea

  296

  —

  —

  Guinea-Bissau

  —

  —

  —

  Israel

  —

  —

  —

  Ivory Coast

  2,615

  —

  —

  Jordan

  2,332

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  34

  —

  —

  Liberia

  1,055

  —

  —

  Mali

  744

  —

  —

  Malta

  91

  —

  —

  Mauritania

  888

  —

  —

  Morocco

  91

  —

  —

  Niger

  331

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  6,240

  —

  —

  Oman

  500

  —

  —

  Portugal

  83

  —

  —

  Senegal

  1,025

  —

  —

  35

  of which

  ATP

  ATP as percentage

  Sierra Leone

  3,626

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  Syria

  2,779

  —

  —

  Togo

  112

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  1,380

  —

  —

  Turkey

  10,280

  —

  —

  West Bank and Gaza

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  79,053

  2,395

  3·04

  1986

  Algeria

  169

  —

  —

  Benin

  158

  —

  —

  Burkina Faso

  131

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  3,744

  508

  13·58

  Cape Verde Islands

  24

  —

  —

  Central African Republic

  42

  —

  —

  Chad

  89

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  400

  —

  —

  Egypt

  15,746

  1,688

  10·73

  Equatorial Guinea

  1

  —

  —

  Gabon

  23

  —

  —

  Gambia

  9,897

  —

  —

  Ghana

  19,454

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  Guinea

  268

  —

  —

  Guinea-Bissau

  62

  —

  —

  Israel

  —

  —

  —

  Ivory Coast

  7,440

  —

  —

  Jordan

  5,641

  —

  —

  Lebanon

  12

  —

  —

  Liberia

  904

  —

  —

  Mali

  1,188

  —

  —

  Malta

  74

  —

  —

  Mauritania

  212

  —

  —

  Morocco

  157

  —

  —

  Niger

  83

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  5,580

  —

  —

  Oman

  610

  —

  —

  Portugal

  14

  —

  —

  Senegal

  4,938

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  3,845

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  Syria

  324

  —

  —

  Togo

  142

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  483

  —

  —

  Turkey

  4,650

  —

  —

  West Bank and Gaza

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  86,502

  2,197

  2·54

  1987

  Algeria

  208

  —

  —

  Benin

  137

  —

  —

  Burkina Faso

  155

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  6,804

  1,541

  22·65

  Cape Verde Islands

  38

  —

  —

  Central African Republic

  -1

  —

  —

  Chad

  179

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  940

  522

  55·47

  Egypt

  7,865

  1,151

  14·64

  Equatorial Guinea

  205

  —

  —

  Gabon

  22

  —

  —

  Gambia

  7,197

  —

  —

  Ghana

  20,153

  —

  —

  Greece

  46

  —

  —

  Guinea

  453

  —

  —

  Guinea-Bissau

  30

  —

  —

  Israel

  —

  —

  —

  Ivory Coast

  4,546

  —

  —

  Jordan

  4,809

  130

  2·70

  Lebanon

  10

  —

  —

  Liberia

  913

  —

  —

  Mali

  982

  —

  —

  Malta

  81

  —

  —

  Mauritania

  177

  —

  —

  36

  of which

  ATP

  ATP as percentage

  Morocco

  180

  —

  —

  Niger

  184

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  6,584

  —

  —

  Oman

  457

  —

  —

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  Senegal

  1,798

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  2,652

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  Syria

  102

  —

  —

  Togo

  120

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  743

  585

  78·75

  Turkey

  3,041

  559

  18·39

  West Bank and Gaza

  363

  —

  —

  Total

  72,173

  4,487

  6·22

  1988

  Algeria

  465

  —

  —

  Benin

  340

  —

  —

  Burkin Faso

  314

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  5,379

  13

  0·24

  Cape Verde Islands

  50

  —

  —

  Central African Republic

  31

  —

  —

  Chad

  252

  —

  —

  Cyprus

  743

  137

  18·40

  Egypt

  18,657

  528

  2·84

  Equatorial Guinea

  17

  —

  —

  Gabon

  7

  —

  —

  Gambia

  6,530

  —

  —

  Ghana

  32,861

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  Guinea

  655

  —

  —

  Guinea-Bissau

  51

  —

  —

  Israel

  13

  —

  —

  Ivory Coast

  7,177

  —

  —

  Jordan

  4,091

  400

  9·79

  Lebanon

  21

  —

  —

  Liberia

  858

  —

  —

  Mali

  1,195

  —

  —

  Malta

  98

  —

  —

  Mauritania

  184

  —

  —

  Morocco

  657

  —

  —

  Niger

  365

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  7,503

  —

  —

  Oman

  964

  —

  —

  Portugal

  1

  —

  —

  Senegal

  1,008

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  3,677

  —

  —

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  Syria

  20

  —

  —

  Togo

  280

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  471

  47

  10·01

  Turkey

  2,536

  1,044

  41·16

  West Bank & Gaza

  1,028

  —

  —

  Total

  98,498

  2,168

  2·21

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the last five years (a) the flows of aid from the United Kingdom to (i) Mozambique, (ii) Namibia, (iii) the Republic of South Africa, (iv) Zambia, (v) Zimbabwe and (vi) all remaining southern African nations, listing those classified under this regional grouping and (b) the proportions in each case of this aid tied to trade deals involving United Kingdom companies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The answer for central and southern Africa is as follows:
  37

  Gross Bilateral Aid 1984–88

  £ thousand

  Of which ATP

  ATP as percentage

  1984

  Central and Southern Africa

  Angola

  146

  —

  —

  Botswana

  15,975

  2,716

  17·01

  Burundi

  75

  —

  —

  Comoros

  —

  —

  —

  Congo

  62

  —

  —

  Lesotho

  5,233

  —

  —

  Madagascar

  363

  175

  48·21

  Malawi

  12,959

  —

  —

  Mauritius

  1,437

  —

  —

  Mozambique

  4,182

  318

  7·61

  Mayotte

  —

  —

  —

  Namibia

  313

  —

  —

  Reunion

  —

  —

  —

  Rwanda

  29

  —

  —

  Sao Tome and Principe

  21

  —

  —

  Seychelles

  1,623

  —

  —

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  5,626

  —

  —

  Zaire

  1,253

  —

  —

  Zambia

  32,901

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  15,062

  289

  1·92

  Total

  97,260

  3,498

  3·60

  1985

  Angola

  164

  —

  —

  Botswana

  8,775

  257

  2·94

  Burundi

  81

  —

  —

  Comoros

  —

  —

  —

  Congo

  120

  —

  —

  Lesotho

  2,382

  —

  —

  Madagascar

  469

  —

  —

  Malawi

  22,356

  143

  0·64

  Mauritius

  2,187

  —

  —

  Mozambique

  8,366

  322

  3·86

  Mayotte

  —

  —

  —

  Namibia

  605

  —

  —

  Reunion

  —

  —

  —

  Rwanda

  94

  —

  —

  Sao Tome and Principe

  —

  —

  —

  Seychelles

  1,136

  —

  —

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  3,469

  —

  —

  Zaire

  738

  —

  —

  Zambia

  25,552

  —.

  —

  Zimbabwe

  23,636

  69

  0·30

  Total

  100,130

  792

  0·80

  1986

  Angola

  317

  —

  —

  Botswana

  12,328

  105

  0·86

  Burundi

  95

  —

  —

  Comoros

  —

  —

  —

  Congo

  127

  —

  —

  Lesotho

  3,784

  —

  —

  Madagascar

  514

  —

  —

  Malawi

  15,346

  87

  0·57

  Mauritius

  5,779

  4,202

  72·72

  Mozambique

  7,424

  118

  1·59

  Mayotte

  —

  —

  —

  Namibia

  733

  —

  —

  Reunion

  —

  —

  —

  Rwanda

  115

  —

  —

  Sao Tome and Principe

  4

  —

  —

  Seychelles

  2,519

  —

  —

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  6,402

  —

  —

  Zaire

  285

  —

  —

  Zambia

  35,351

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  12,503

  3

  0·03

  38

  Of which ATP

  ATP as percentage

  Total

  103,628

  4,516

  4·36

  1987

  Angola

  261

  —

  —

  Botswana

  12,219

  6

  0·05

  Burundi

  90

  —

  —

  Comoros

  —

  —

  —

  Congo

  179

  —

  —

  Lesotho

  3,942

  —

  —

  Madagascar

  551

  —

  —

  Malawi

  24,865

  1,657

  6·67

  Mauritius

  8,107

  1,961

  24·20

  Mozambique

  22,798

  661

  2·90

  Mayotte

  —

  —

  —

  Namibia

  969

  —

  —

  Reunion

  —

  —

  —

  Rwanda

  191

  —

  —

  Sao Tome and Principe

  —

  —

  —

  Seychelles

  1,689

  —

  —

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  3,514

  —

  —

  Zaire

  3,112

  —

  —

  Zambia

  25,349

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  12,498

  —

  —

  Total

  120,334

  4,285

  3·57

  1988

  Angola

  505

  —

  —

  Botswana

  8,251

  —

  —

  Burundi

  116

  —

  —

  Comoros

  1

  —

  —

  Congo

  296

  —

  —

  Lesotho

  4,898

  —

  —

  Madagascar

  434

  —

  —

  Malawi

  46,494

  1,410

  3·04

  Mauritius

  6,374

  —

  —

  Mozambique

  30,512

  —

  —

  Mayotte

  —

  —

  —

  Namibia

  2,033

  —

  —

  Reunion

  —

  —

  —

  Rwanda

  291

  —

  —

  Sao Tome and Principe

  16

  —

  —

  Seychelles

  1,716

  —

  —

  South Africa

  —

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  5,058

  —

  —

  Zaire

  595

  —

  —

  Zambia

  16,683

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  24,127

  4,041

  16·75

  Total

  148,401

  5,451

  3·68

  Footnote:

  The United Kingdom does not provide aid to the Government of South Africa but does give aid to black South Africans disadvantaged by apartheid, through the TC programme for black South Africans. It is excluded from gross public expenditure as South Africa is not classified by OECD as a developing country. The amounts. given through this scheme were as follows (in £ thousands): 494 in 1984, 691 in 1985, 772 in 1986, 1,577 in 1987, 4,288 in 1988.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for the last five years (a) the flows of aid from the United Kingdom to (i) Angola, (ii) Ethiopia, (iii) Kenya, (iv) Tanzania, (v) Uganda, (vi) Zaireand (vii) all remaining central and eastern African nations, listing those classified under this regional grouping and (b) the proportions in each case of this aid tied to trade deals involving United Kingdom companies.
  39
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The answer for eastern Africa is as follows: the information requested on central Africa is given in the answer to the hon. Member's question on southern Africa.

  Gross Bilateral Aid 1984–1988

  £ thousand

  1984 of which ATP

  ATP as a Percentage

  Eastern Africa

  Djibouti

  8

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  7,004

  —

  —

  Kenya

  38,312

  2,021

  5·28

  Somalia

  2,058

  —

  —

  Sudan

  27,427

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  33,033

  —

  —

  Uganda

  7,081

  —

  —

  Yemen North (YAR)

  3,103

  —

  —

  Yemen South (PDRY)

  969

  —

  —

  Total

  118,995

  2,021

  1·70

  Gross Bilateral Aid 1984–1988

  £ thousand

  1985 of which ATP

  ATP as a Percentage

  Eastern Africa

  Djibouti

  —

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  28,058

  —

  —

  Kenya

  34,438

  360

  1·05

  Somalia

  1,737

  —

  —

  Sudan

  42,296

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  17,967

  —

  —

  Uganda

  9,171

  —

  —

  Yemen North (YAR)

  3,104

  —

  —

  Yemen South (PDRY)

  985

  —

  —

  Total

  137,757

  360

  0·27

  Gross Bilateral Aid 1984–1988

  £ thousand

  1986 of which ATP

  ATP as a Percentage

  Eastern Africa

  Djibouti

  2

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  9,627

  —

  —

  Kenya

  33,754

  2,049

  6·08

  Disbursements of Net Official Development Assistance 1980–1988

  United Kingdom

  EEC Countries1 (including United Kingdom)

  EEC Countries2 (excluding United Kingdom)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  £ million

  per cent GNP

  £ million

  per cent GNP

  £ million

  per cent GNP

  1980

  797

  0·35

  5,577

  0·47

  4,780

  0·50

  1981

  1,081

  0·43

  6,264

  0·53

  5,183

  0·56

  1982

  1,028

  0·37

  6,987

  0·53

  5,959

  0·57

  1983

  1,061

  0·35

  7,605

  0·51

  6,544

  0·55

  1984

  1,069

  0·33

  8,478

  0·51

  7,409

  0·55

  1985

  1,180

  0·33

  8,964

  0·51

  7,783

  0·55

  1986

  1,185

  0·31

  10,995

  0·51

  9,811

  0·55

  1987

  1,142

  0·28

  11,651

  0·49

  10,509

  0·53

  1988

  1,485

  0·32

  11,919

  0·49

  10,434

  0·53

  United States of America

  Japan

  Australia and New Zealand

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  £ million

  per cent GNP

  £ million

  per cent GNP

  £ million

  per cent. GNP

  1980

  3,069

  0·27

  1,441

  0·32

  318

  0·46

  1981

  2,851

  0·19

  1,564

  0·28

  354

  0·40

  1982

  4,686

  0·27

  1,727

  0·28

  541

  0·52

  1983

  5,327

  0·24

  2,479

  0·32

  537

  0·46

  1984

  6,518

  0·24

  3,232

  0·34

  623

  0·43

  1985

  7,253

  0·24

  2,929

  0·29

  619

  0·46

  40

  1986 of which ATP

  ATP as a Percentage

  Somalia

  3,941

  —

  —

  Sudan

  25,996

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  12,715

  —

  —

  Uganda

  8,576

  —

  —

  Yemen North (YAR)

  3,775

  —

  —

  Yemen South (PDRY)

  943

  —

  —

  Total

  99,329

  2,049

  2·07

  Of which ATP

  ATP as per cent.

  Eastern Africa

  1987

  Djibouti

  168

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  8,554

  —

  —

  Kenya

  28,513

  2,972

  10·43

  Somalia

  7,292

  —

  —

  Sudan

  20,327

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  28,789

  —

  —

  Uganda

  12,180

  —

  —

  Yemen North (YAR)

  5,168

  —

  —

  Yemen South (PDRY)

  1,157

  —

  —

  Total

  112,148

  2,972

  2·66

  1988

  Djibouti

  134

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  19,174

  —

  —

  Kenya

  49,433

  4,383

  8·37

  Somalia

  6,675

  —

  —

  Sudan

  25,829

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  33,502

  —

  —

  Uganda

  28,589

  —

  —

  Yemen North (YAR)

  6,603

  1,203

  18·23

  Yemen South (PDRY)

  444

  —

  —

  Total

  170,383

  5,587

  3·28

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the chart printed in the Official Report, 31 January, columns 191–92, in pounds sterling.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The answer is as follows:
  41

  United Kingdom

  EEC Countries1 (including United Kingdom)

  EEC Countries2 (excluding United Kingdom)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  £ million

  per cent GNP

  £ million

  per cent GNP

  £ million

  per cent GNP

  1986

  6,523

  0·23

  3,842

  0·29

  564

  0·44

  1987

  5,458

  0·20

  4,480

  0·31

  436

  0·32

  1988

  5,693

  0·21

  5,128

  0·32

  677

  0·44

  1EEC countries which are members of the DAC: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland2, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom.

  2Ireland not included in 1980 and 1981 as figures not available.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, further to his reply,Official Report, 31 January, column 190, he will list those countries included under the headings South America, Africa and Asia and the middle east as being beneficiaries of United Kingdom bilateral aid and trade flows; and if he will list any other beneficiaries not classified under these three groupings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following countries were beneficiaries of funds from the aid and trade provision in the period 1984–88:

  South America

  Brazil

  Colombia

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Africa

  Botswana

  Cameroon

  Egypt

  Kenya

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Mauritius

  Mozambique

  Tunisia

  Zimbabwe

  Asia and Middle East

  Burma

  China

  India

  Indonesia

  Jordan

  Malaysia

  Philippines

  Sri Lanka

  Thailand

  Yemen Arab Republic

  Other Beneficiaries

  Belize

  Cyprus

  Panama

  Turkey

  Leeward Islands

  Further details can be found in "British Aid Statistics 1984–88," a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  1992
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement as to the anticipated consequences for developing and under developed countries of the European Communities 1992 programme, in respect of their aid and trade relations with(a) the European Community, (b) individual European Community nations and (c) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The creation of a single market in 1992 will not affect the way the European Community and individual member states decide their aid programmes to developing countries. The United Kingdom maintains a42
  substantial and effective aid programme and will continue to do so. The single market programme will integrate the economies of the EC member states more closely. By removing barriers to trade and increasing the size of the market it should provide new opportunities for those of our trading partners outside the Community.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the Australian proposal to partition Cambodia into two zones, one held by the Khmer Rouge and the other by Phnom Penh.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Senator Evans' proposal far a UN-administered interim authority in Cambodia pending free and fair elections does not envisage the partition of Cambodia. We strongly support the Australian initiative which the permanent members of the UN Security Council are actively pursuing.

  Rain Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he hopes to meet non-governmental organisations on the rain forest; and if he will make a statement to the House subsequent to the meeting.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has regular contact with representatives of the non-governmental organisations on environmental matters including the rain forests. She or ODA officials are ready to meet NGO representatives at short notice if issues arise which require this.

  South Africa
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the South African authorities concerning the human rights implications of the continued imprisonment of those persons who have refused to serve in the South African defence forces for reasons of faith.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The South African Defence Act makes provision for conscientious objection on religious grounds. We understand why some young South Africans choose to refuse military service and we respect the strength and sincerity of their views. Such decisions are., however, a matter for the individuals concerned.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Code of Practice
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many complaints were made to him during 1989 about the operation of the Civil Service code of practice.

  Mr. Luce
  Individual complaints about the operation of the conduct provisions of the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code are dealt with by the Department concerned. I receive representations of a more general nature from time to time.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how he intends to counter racial discrimination in appointments to the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  The Civil Service is an equal opportunity employer; selection is on merit by fair and open competition. Action to support this policy includes monitoring recruitment procedures, validating selection tests for different racial groups and equal opportunity training for those involved in selection.

  Vetting
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the vetting procedures in the Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  The vetting system is an important element of the protective arrangements which exist to counter threats to security. It is not the practice to give detailed information about the system.

  Obligations to the Crown
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service pursuant to his answer of 6 February, if he will make a statement on the meeting between the Civil Service unions and the head of the home Civil Service to discuss wider obligations to the Crown in Parliament.
  44
  Mr. Luce
  The head of the home Civil Service met the Civil Service unions on 7 February to discuss a range of matters, including the proposed revision of the paragraphs of the Civil Service pay and conditions of service code which deal with the use of official information. He has undertaken to write to the unions confirming assurances given to them at the meeting that there is no inconsistency between proposed code revision and the note by his predecessor on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers, which was published in the Official Report on 2 December 1987, and in particular that the proposed revision does not impose duties and obligations on civil servants which conflict with any statutory or other responsibilities they may have.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the quality of service performance indicators that have been introduced into the Civil Service college since its establishment as an agency.

  Mr. Luce
  Since the beginning of 1990, ratings of the quality of the Civil Service college's training, accommodation, catering and support services have contributed to an overall value for money indicator. This new performance indicator complements the course evaluation indicator which was in operation before the transition to agency status.

  Agencies
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list the Civil Service agencies that have been established with the dates and the number of staff employed in each case.

  Mr. Luce
  The information requested by the hon. Member is set out in the table.

  Agency

  Established

  Staff

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1 August 1988

  1,550

  Companies House

  3 October 1988

  1,150

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office

  14 December 1988

  3,200

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  18 April 1989

  50

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  20 April 1989

  300

  Resettlement Agency

  24 May 1989

  550

  Civil Service College

  6 June 1989

  200

  QE11 Conference Centre

  6 July 1989

  50

  Historic Royal Palaces

  1 October 1989

  350

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  30 October 1989

  300

  Total 10 Agencies

  7,700

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Exports
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the action which he is taking to increase British exports.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provide through the export initiative a package of measures offering a wide range of practical help, advice and support to United Kingdom exporters.

  Our clear aim is to encourage potential exporters to consider selling overseas and existing exporters to sell more. The decision to export of course rests with individual firms: it is they who will determine whether they are successful. Our role is to help them in their decision-making and to provide the services they require to enter export markets. Our services are closely monitored to ensure they continue to meet the needs of exporters.

  It is encouraging to see that the volume of exports, excluding oil and erratic items, was 10 per cent. higher in 1989 than in 1988.

  Japan
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the steps being taken to open the Japanese market to exports from Britain.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government have two main trade policy objectives with regard to further opening the Japanese market to exports from Britain. First, to encourage the Japanese authorities to pursue structural reforms to sustain the shift in the balance of their economy from growth led by exports to growth led by domestic demand. Secondly, to secure the removal of the remaining specific barriers to market access. We have been successful: few such barriers remain, and where they do the Government campaign vigorously for their removal in cooperation with the European Commission. We are also strenuously promoting business awareness of the opportunities in the Japanese market and the improvement of our businessmen's skills in the Japanese language. Last year United Kingdom exports to Japan increased by £525 million to £2·3 billion, an increase of 30 per cent. over 1988.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding access to the Japanese market for British exports.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on 6 December. Last year, our exports to Japan increased in value by 30·1 per cent.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to promote exports from the north-east to eastern European countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is encouraging business men to look hard at the new commercial opportunities in 46
  eastern Europe. DTI Ministers are playing their part both by receiving incoming delegations and by leading business missions themselves. At the end of last year the Minister for Trade and I led business teams to the USSR and Hungary respectively. In the course of the next two months the Secretary of State and I will be taking business men to the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania while the Minister for Trade will be visiting British stands at the Leipzig fair in the GDR.

  My Department is also encouraging British business to take full advantage of the several United Kingdom, EC and multilateral assistance schemes becoming available to help explore the new opportunities for direct investment, joint ventures, and other forms of industrial cooperation. Potential exporters from the north-east can take advantage of the advice from my Department's export service staff in the regional office in Newcastle.

  Leeds Task Force
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the work of the inner-city task force in Leeds with regard to securing jobs and training for local people and giving assistance to existing local firms and start-up businesses; and how many private sector companies have supported task-force projects in Leeds.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government's Chapeltown and Harehills task force has committed £5 million to support some 130 projects. These should create over 340 jobs and more than 3,500 training places for residents of the area. Seventy-three existing businesses and 137 new businesses have received assistance, primarily through the task force's development fund. More than 50 of the projects involve private sector funding.

  Cosmetics (Additives)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what controls exist over the use of additives in cosmetics; if he will publish a list of those additives whose use is permitted in cosmetics; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The ingredients of cosmetics are regulated by the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1989 SI 1989 No. 2233. Suppliers are permitted to use only those preservatives and colourants on the "permitted lists" in schedules 3 and 4, and in future no further anti-oxidants are to be prescribed by future directives.

  Electric Vehicles
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on non-governmental research being carried out in the United Kingdom to develop road vehicles powered by electricity.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Companies carrying out research into various aspects of electric vehicle (EV) technology include Chloride EV Systems which has a joint venture with General Motors to develop the electric "G Van" and Lucas Industries (UK) which is collaborating with United States and Swedish companies to develop traction batteries.

  Garston Amhurst
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to exercise his powers under the Financial Services and Companies Acts to trace funds invested in the Garston Amhurst Associates Group(a) in an account at Barclays bank, Lewisham and (b) overseas.

  Mr. Redwood
  On 25 January 1990 the Official Receiver was appointed provisional liquidator of five companies in the Garston Amhurst Associates group, following petitions for compulsory winding-up orders to be made against the companies by the Securities and Investments Board. The Official Receiver's inquiries into the assets of the companies are continuing. I am satisfied that the Official Receiver has sufficient powers under the Insolvency Act 1986 to carry out his functions as provisional liquidator.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many television sets were imported into Great Britain in 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of television sets imported into the United Kingdom in 1989 was 1,885,000.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many television sets were manufactured in Great Britain in 1989.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of television sets manufactured in Great Britain in 1989 is provisionally estimated at 2·6 million.

  Reeve Leisure Limited
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning timeshare promotion schemes of Reeve Leisure Ltd., of Kings avenue, New Malden; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received a number of complaints about the promotional activities of Reeve Leisure Ltd. as well as complaints about other timeshare companies. My hon. Friend will be aware that I asked the Director General of Fair Trading in June 1989 to undertake a review of the whole range of timeshare problems and to let me have his recommendations in the early part of this year.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the recycling of chlorofluorocarbons from the foam in refrigerators.

  Mr. Forth
  There are technical difficulties in extracting chlorofluorocarbons from the foam in refrigerators, and I know of no full-scale system operating anywhere at present. My Department has commissioned Coopers and Lybrand to carry out a wide-ranging study into chlorofluorocarbons use, including the technical and economic options for their recovery, recycling and destruction. That study is due to be completed shortly.

  Loan Sharks
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the increasing activities of loan sharks on council estates in Manchester; what reply he is sending; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The only representations my right hon. Friend has received are those contained in the right hon. Member's letter of 1 February, to which a reply will be sent shortly. The law, in particular the consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Administration of Justice Act 1970, provides the enforcement authorities with appropriate powers to protect the public from loan sharks. The Director General of Fair Trading and local authorities have the duty of enforcing consumer credit legislation whilst enforcement of other relevant laws is a matter for the police.

  Ferranti Defence Systems
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Office of Fair Trading began its investigation into the planned GEC acquisition of Ferranti Defence Systems; and when it hopes to report.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Director General of Fair Trading has submitted his recommendation on the merger to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who announced on 9 February 1990 that he has decided, in accordance with the director general's recommendation, not to refer the proposed acquisition by the General Electric Company plc of Ferranti Defence Systems Group and of Ferranti International plc's interests in Ferranti Italia SRL to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Japanese Car Plants (United Kingdom)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is aware of any requirement by Japanese car manufacturers in the United Kingdom for United Kingdom component manufacturers in future to enter into joint ventures with Japanese companies in order to be qualified to tender for work in United Kingdom-located Japanese car plants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Japanese car manufacturers based in the United Kingdom operate no general rule of this kind. If there are any instances in which a Japanese car manufacturer has told a potential United Kingdom component supplier that a joint venture will be necessary, that is a matter for commercial negotiation between the parties.

  Agencies (Performance Indicators)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the quaity of service performance indicators that have been introduced into Companies House, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, the Warren Spring Laboratory and the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, respectively, since their establishment as agencies.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 15 January 1990.

  Mining Engineering
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to meet the directors of mining engineering companies in the west Yorkshire area to discuss production and export drives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have no present plans to meet the directors of mining engineering companies in the west Yorkshire area.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what have been the Government's contributions to the citizens advice bureaux in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department does not fund individual citizens advice bureaux. However, my Department funds the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) which covers bureaux in England and Wales and Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS). Total grant-in-aid paid by my Department to NACAB and CAS during the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  7·993

  1986–87

  8·604

  1987–88

  8·954

  1988–89

  9·405

  11989–90

  9·927

  1 Estimated.

  ECGD Insurance Services Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy that the insurance services group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department will only be privatised on condition that the purchaser is domiciled and registered in the United Kingdom and that all the directors are United Kingdom citizens.

  Mr. Ridley
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy that the insurance services group of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department, should not be sold in whole, or in part, to companies controlled outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ridley
  No.

  Accounting Standards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether accountants employed by firms criticised by his Department will be appointed to the accounting standards task force.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand that Sir Ronald Dearing has no present plans to make further appointments to the accounting standards task force.

THE ARTS

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the plans to meet the chair of Greater London Arts to discuss the effect of the uniform business rate on arts funding in London.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to meet the chair of Greater London Arts to discuss the effect that the uniform business rate may have on arts funding in London.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so. Greater London Arts is currently compiling information on the effects of the change and I am asking it to keep me informed.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss the effect of the uniform business rate on arts funding.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council to discuss the impact of the uniform business rate on arts funding.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans to do so. I am asking the Welsh Arts Council to monitor the effects of the change and to keep me informed.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what assessment he has made of the implications for arts funding of the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Luce
  The Arts Council is assessing the implications of the uniform business rate on performing arts organisations, and I have asked it to keep me informed. There are no immediate implications for the national museums and galleries, since (except for the national museums and galleries on Merseyside) they do not at present pay rates. I am keeping the situation under review.

  European City of Culture
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to attend any events connected with Glasgow's European City of Culture celebrations.

  Mr. Luce
  Yes, I shall be in Glasgow from 1–3 March for the official inauguration and associated events. I shall also be in Glasgow on 14 March, to open the Arts Council of Great Britain's conference, "Arts without Frontiers".

  Autumn Statement
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received following the settlement for the arts in the Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I am pleased to say that I have received many letters of appreciation from chairmen and directors of institutions which benefited from revised allocations.

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress has been made with the business sponsorship incentive scheme in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.
  51
  Mr. Luce
  I am delighted that the business sponsorship incentive scheme has brought over £1 million of new money to the arts in the north-west since it began in 1984. (Fifty arts organisations have won awards and 54 first-time and 20 existing sponsors have supported the arts.)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he intends to change the rules and funding of the business sponsorship incentive scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  I recently announced changes in the rules of the business sponsorship incentive scheme to enable it to focus on companies considering arts sponsorship for the first time. Under the new rules, which will operate from 1 April 1990, first-time sponsors will continue to be matched pound for pound. However, existing sponsors will be matched in the ratio of £1 for every £4 of additional sponsorship and businesses which have sponsored the arts for more than three years will no longer be eligible. The increased budget for the scheme of £3·5 million will be divided into six bi-monthly budgets in order to spread these resources more evenly throughout the year. Arts organisations will continue to be eligible for two awards each financial year up to the maximum of £25,000.

  Leicester
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next intends to visit the city of Leicester.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no plans at present to visit Leicester, which I last visited in September 1988.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what has been the allocation to the Arts Council in current prices for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Luce
  The grant-in-aid to the Arts Council in 1985–86 was £105 million, which at 1989–90 prices, using the GDP inflator, is equivalent to £131 million. The figures for the following years were: 1986–87 £135·6 million (£163·9 million at current prices); 1987–88 £139·3 million (£159·9 million ); 1988–89 £150 million (£160·5 million); and 1989–90 £155·25 million. The figure for next year will be £175 million, equivalent to £166·7 million at today's prices, using the GDP forecast. Over the next three years, the compounded increase will be 22 per cent., compared to a projected compound increase of 12 per cent. in the GDP inflator over the whole of that period.

  Youth Arts Organisations
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage the work of the national youth arts organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  It is the role of the Arts Council to encourage such bodies. However, I understand that it has decided to allocate £3,000 next year to each of four youth organisations, the National Youth Theatre, the National Youth Orchestra, British Youth Opera and the National Youth Music Theatre. These grants are intended to help the companies with the professional aspects of their work.

  Ballet
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last attended the ballet in an official capacity.

  Mr. Luce
  I last attended the ballet in an official capacity on 30 October 1989, when I went to a performance of "Swan Lake" at the Royal Opera House.

  Admission Charges
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what recent studies he has commissioned of the consequences of compulsory charges to enter galleries and museums.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government's repeatedly stated policy is that the decision whether or not to operate a system of admission charges, or voluntary donations, should be for the board of trustees responsible for each institution.

  Similarly, it is for the trustees of each institution to decide whether or not to commission studies into the consequences of charges.

  Merseyside Arts
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the chairman of Merseyside Arts to discuss the Wilding review on the funding of the arts in Liverpool.

  Mr. Luce
  I discussed Mr. Wilding's report with the chairman and representatives of Merseyside Arts on 1 December 1989. I also discussed the report with the chairman of the Arts Council and the chairmen of the regional arts associations on 1 February 1990.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Creches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by location, where creche facilities are provided for working mothers employed in his Department; and if they have to make any payment for this service.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no creche facilities provided by the Northern Ireland Civil Service or the Northern Ireland Office.

  The Northern Ireland Civil Service and the home Civil Service are, however, considering how child care arrangements for staff could be improved. Two holiday playschemes have been established, on a pilot basis, within the Northern Ireland Civil Service. One scheme, based in Londonderry, ran during the 1989 summer school holidays, whilst the scheme based in the Stormont estate ran during the 1989 summer and Christmas holiday periods. The schemes were also open to home Civil Service staff in Northern Ireland. A holiday playscheme in Westminster, Elephant and Castle, Kensington and Croydon was available to London-based staff during 1989.

  In the Northern Ireland Civil Service a joint management and trade union side working group on childcare, which is responsible for the holiday playscheme initiative in the Province, is considering the feasibility of providing creches for the children of civil servants. In view

  53
  of the small number of London-based staff in the Northern Ireland Office, it would be impracticable to organise a separate creche. Nevertheless, creche facilities are being sought with larger Government Departments.

  Fire Service
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what training, advice and guidance is given to members of police forces from Great Britain who may be visiting or seconded to the Royal Ulster Constabulary regarding fire safety and prevention; and what arrangements exist for liaison with the Northern Ireland fire service for this.

  Mr. Cope
  No formal training programme is given by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to visiting or seconded police officers. Most visiting officers would normally have already received some form of fire prevention training within their own force. Visitors staying in police establishments are briefed on fire exits and so on to be used in the event of a fire or terrorist attack. Liaison with the Northern Ireland fire authority is carried out through the police authority and the works service of the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland).

  Meetings
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list any meetings involving Sir Robert Andrew, Mr Colin Sampson and Sir Philip Myers on matters relating to Northern Ireland which took place in 1986.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 25 January 1990]: There was one such meeting, on 12 June 1986, involving Sir Robert Andrew, Mr. Colin Sampson and Sir Philip Myers, and also Sir Lawrence Byford.

  Life Sentence Review Board
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals for change in the structure of remit of the life sentence review board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  No. We shall, however, be examining our life sentence review procedures in the light of the Government's response to the recently published report of the House of Lords Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment, which included recommendations about the review system in Great Britain.

  Fine Default
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals to abolish imprisonment for fine default; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no such proposals at present.

  Republic of Ireland (Economic Co-operation)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of moves towards increased cross-border economic co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
  54
  Mr. Cope
  The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference initiated last year a systematic programme of assessment of all the main sectors, to determine where the process of social and economic co-operation can most fruitfully be expanded. A joint Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland paper on cross-border matters has been prepared for presentation to the EC under its cross-border programme and it is hoped to submit this shortly.

  Stormont
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what purpose the new construction work is being carried out in the Stormont complex; and at what cost.

  Mr. Cope
  A variety of work is in progress for the purpose largely of relieving pressures on accommodation, modernising telecommunications and pursuing maintenance programmes. The final cost is not available.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. McMamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what attempts have been made by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to question Mr. F. Holroyd about his knowledge of events at the Kincora boys' hostel.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: I understand that Mr. Holroyd has been inteviewed by officers of the Royal Ulster Constabularly on a number of occasions. During those interviews he was questioned about, inter alia, the extent of his knowledge of events at the Kincora boys' hostel.

  Devolution
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on plans for devolution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 1 February. I expect to have further discussions with the leadership of the main consitutional political parties in Northern Ireland in the near future.—(Official Report, Vol. 166, No. 42, col. 417).

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on proposals for the Ulster Defence Regiment to carry plastic bullets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: A decision was taken last year that plastic baton round equipment could be made available to the Ulster Defence Regiment for use in carefully prescribed circumstances. There has been no change in the role of the regiment, which will continue not to be employed on crowd control duties.

ENVIRONMENT

  Assured Tenancies
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have been provided in the private rented sector as a result of the assured tenancy initiative, both in total for the United Kingdom and by region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is too early to assess the overall impact of deregulation on the supply of rented accommodation, but there are clear signs of increased interest in residential lettings. In particular, over £370 million has been invested in business expansion scheme companies letting on assured tenancies, which will provide some 7,000 new homes to let in Great Britain. In addition, some 18,000 homes will be completed by housing associations in England in the current financial year, for letting on assured tenancies.

  Palace of Westminster
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dover of 29 January, if he will take steps to speed up the programme of works for cleaning and restoring the inner courtyards in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  I shall keep the programme under review.

  Quangos and Advisory Bodies
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a list of all the quangos and advisory bodies he has established since July 1989, the membership of each body, the rate at which the members are remunerated, whether they are full or part-time, the number of civil servants attached to each body, their grades and salary level, the number of quango and advisory bodies he has abolished since July 1989, and the consequential saving to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The following table lists the current membership of the authorities and members' remuneration of bodies established since July 1989. All posts are part-time. There are no civil servants attached to either body.

  National Rivers Authority

  Remuneration

  Chairman: Lord Crickhowell

  Remuneration per annum £42,210

  Members: P. Brandt

  £6,450–£ 15,050 depending of time commitment

  J. P. Coverdale

  Lady Dione Digby (appointed by Welsh Office)

  Professor R. Edwards

  Sir Hugh Fish

  D. Kinnersley

  Lord Mason (appointed by MAFF)

  D. Mitchell

  Mrs. K. Morgan (appointed by MAFF)

  J. H. M. Norris

  W. J. Rogers-Coltman

  R. J. F. Taylor

  J. Wheatley

  Chief Executive and ex-officio member: Dr. John Bowman (not paid as board member).
  56

  London Pensions Fund Authority

  Remuneration

  Chairman: Sir George Blunden

  The post attracts a remuneration of £9,600 per annum but the Chairman is currently serving without payment

  Deputy Chairman: M. C. Roberts

  £8,000

  Members: Sir Nigel Althaus

  £3,000

  Councillor E. D. Barkway

  Councillor S. Bullock

  Professor R. Franklin

  Councillor A. King

  Councillor A. S. Lourie

  C. J. Messer

  The following public bodies have been abolished since July 1989; New Towns Staff Commission, South Yorkshire Residuary Body and Greater Manchester Residuary Body. The Merseyside Residuary Body will be formally wound up on 30 March 1990. The residuary bodies were not funded by the Exchequer; the abolition of the New Towns Staff Commission has led to a saving of the order of £800 a year for the fees and travelling and subsistence expenses of members.

  House Purchases and Sales
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to seek to reduce the costs of(a) buying and (b) selling a home.

  Mr. Chope
  We want house buying and selling to be as simple, inexpensive and as fair as possible to both parties involved. This is best achieved by healthy competition between those offering services to house buyers and sellers, and by the development of efficient practices. For further information, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 6 February 1990 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, Vol. 166, col. 545.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the increased rate levy on business under the uniform business rate over previous rate charges on business in(a) central London, (b) outer London, (c) the west midlands and (d) the south-east; and what research studies he has commissioned into the economic and social consequences of taking out these extra sums each year on (i) prices in the areas concerned, (ii) rents and (iii) attraction of the areas to inward investment.

  Mr. Chope
  As a result of the 1990 revaluation and the introduction of a uniform business rate on 1 April, the aggregate change in rate bills before taking account of the transitional arrangements will be:

  (a) Inner London—an increase of £610 million.

  (b) Outer London—an increase of £20 million.

  (c) West Midlands—a reduction of £220 million.

  (d) South East—an increase of £250 million.

  The total amount payable by businesses as a whole will be broadly the same in real terms in 1990–91 as in 1989–90: but there will be a shift in the burden of rates of around £900 million from the north and the midlands to London and the south.
  57
  This will give a boost to existing businesses and stimulate investment in areas such as Grimsby, where rates will fall on average by 21 per cent. in cash terms without transition.

  Because at national level the effect of the new system is broadly neutral the changes will not be inflationary. Where properties face large increases in rate bills there will be consequential downward pressure on rents.

  Rent Revisions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received for amendments to landlord and tenant legislation to prohibit contracts which allow only upward rent revision and to make provision for both upward and downward revision mandatory; what proposals he has for legislation in the matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We have received three representations about upward-only rent reviews since the main legislation for business tenancies, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 part II, was reviewed in 1985. Following consultation it was concluded that the balance between tenant and landlord rights and obligations was being maintained and that overall the Act continued to work well. That remains the position and the Government do not intend to intervene further in the business lettings market.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what percentage of net weekly income a household in each of the regions on a weekly net income of(a) £100, (b) £150, (c) £200, (d) £250, (e) £300, (f) £400 and (g) £500 will pay in poll tax in (i) 1990–91, (ii) 1991–92 and (iii) 1992–93;

  (2) what percentage of net weekly income a household in Greater London on a weekly net income of (a) £100, (b) £150, (c) £200, (d) £250, (e) £300, (f) £400 and (g) £500 will pay in poll tax in (i) 1990–91, (ii) 1991–92 and (iii) 1992–93;

  (3) what percentage of net weekly income a household on a weekly net income of (a) £100, (b) £150, (c) £200, (d) £250, (e) £300, (f) £400 and (g) £500 will pay in poll tax in (i) 1990–91, (ii) 1991–92 and (iii) 1992–93.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures requested are not available.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made as to the amount towards the cost of local government that will be contributed under the community charge system by the top 10 per cent. of all households by income, taking tax payments to central Government into account, and the amount that will be contributed by the poorest 10 per cent. of households by income.

  Mr. David Hunt
  About 15 times as much will be contributed to the cost of local government by the top 10 per cent. of households by income compared with the poorest 10 per cent.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what poll tax payments are due from a full-time mature student on a full grant but with no other source of income who owns his own home, which has no other occupants, and who is living and studying away from home.
  58
  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: A person who is following a full-time course of education for the purposes of the student relief will be liable to pay 20 per cent. of the personal community charge at his term-time address. If that person also owns domestic property in which there is no person solely or mainly resident, he will be subject to the standard community charge in respect of that property. However, guidance already issued by the Department has suggested that local authorities should use the wide discretion available to them to specify this class of circumstance as one where the standard community charge multiplier is zero.

  Council Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities in the north-west have privatised council services; which authority has privatised the most services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Local authorities are required to put certain of their services out to competitive tender under the terms of the Local Government Act 1988 in accordance with a timetable prescribed in the Local Government Act 1988 (Defined Activities) (Competition) (England) Regulations 1988, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. These require those authorities which were not able to claim exemption on de minimis grounds to put one specified service out to tender by 1 August 1989 and a second service by 1 January 1990. Different services were prescribed for different authorities. In addition, all authorities which were not subject to a de minimis exemption were required to put at least 20 per cent. of their ground maintenance work out to tender by 1 January 1990.

  The results of a questionnaire on the first round of tendering under the 1988 Act are not yet available. Information about tendering for services not covered by the Local Government Act 1988 is not collected centrally.

  Community Charge (Nurses)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance has been issued to community charge officers on levying of the community charge on nurses living in hostel accommodation during the week and returning to their own homes at weekends.

  Mr. Chope
  Guidance on determining an individual's sole or main residence for the purposes of registration for the personal community charge is contained in community charge practice note No. 9. Where an individual is regarded as solely or mainly resident will depend on the facts of each case. Advice to charging authorities on the standard charge in respect of unoccupied property has recommended them to consider a special class for property which is empty because the owner is required to live elsewhere as a condition of his or her employment.

  Waste Disposal, Bradford
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many licences relating to waste disposal facilities have been issued by Bradford council; how many licence applications have been refused; how many inspections are made annually of waste dumps in
  59
  Bradford; and how many operators have been prosecuted for breach of licence conditions in respect of waste dumps in Bradford;

  (2) how many waste dumps there are within the area of Bradford metropolitan district council; how many have been abandoned; how many are safely capped; and what information he has on plans issued by Bradford council for dealing with wastes;

  (3) if he will arrange for all waste dumps in Bradford to be inspected and action taken to stop waste contaminating ground water and drinking water supplies; and if he has received any representations expressing concern about the risks of waste dumping in Bradford contaminating drinking water supplies.

  Mr. Trippier
  These are matters for the West Yorkshire waste management joint committee as waste disposal authority for the area. Details of current licences are contained on registers held by the waste disposal authorities.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to ban co-disposal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. Co-disposal of wastes is a recognised landfill technique which, in suitable circumstances, can offer environmental benefits. It requires careful site assessment and operational control and these are matters for site operators and regulatory authorities to consider within the waste disposal licensing system.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to require companies that dump waste to pay the costs of making waste dumps safe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Environmental Protection Bill contains provision that a licence shall remain in force after the final deposit of waste until a certificate of completion is obtained which certifies that the waste regulation authority is satisfied that the land is unlikely to cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. The licensee will remain responsible for the land until that time and will have to bear the costs of any work that needs to be carried out.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will establish as a matter of urgency a ministerial working party charged with recommending a national waste disposal policy and ensure that the working party represents all interested parties and receives evidence on the widest possible basis;

  (2) if he will introduce a national waste disposal policy.

  Mr. Trippier
  No working party is required to prepare national policies in this area.

  Co-ordinated central Government advice and guidance on waste management is given to local authorities to assist them in determining, in accordance with their statutory duties, local waste disposal strategies for their areas, consulting other bodies as necessary. Additional guidance is being prepared in relation to the proposed duties for local authorities under part II of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake a new national survey of 60
  waste tips in England and Wales; if he will take steps to establish a register of old waste dumps; and what action he is taking to tell the National Rivers Authority the location of waste dumps which pose a risk or serious risk of contamination to drinking water supplies.

  Mr. Trippier
  A national survey is not required. The Environmental Protection Bill contains proposals for waste regulation authorities to seek out and keep records of any land which has ever been used for waste disposal and to inspect and monitor closed sites.

  Waste disposal authorities are required to consult the NRA over all applications for waste disposal licences, and the NRA has extensive programmes for monitoring ground and surface waters, which are currently being reviewed.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when was the list of waste dumps near water supplies first received by his Department; what prompted an examination of 19 of the tips on the list; what were the conclusions of that investigation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The recently publicised survey was a desk assessment carried out with the co-operation of local authorities and the then river authorities during 1973 and 1974. Subsequently, as part of a research programme, detailed investigations were undertaken by independent consultants at 19 representative sites. The research report was published in 1978 and concluded that controlled landfill was acceptable in a range of geological circumstances and confirmed previous experience with this disposal method.

  Control of Pollution Act
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to bring the first section of the Control of Pollution Act into force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is no longer appropriate to seek to bring section 1 of the 1974 Act into force in view of the proposed replacement of part I of that Act by the provisions in part II of the Environmental Protection Bill.

  Gipsy Sites, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has yet reached a decision under the Caravan Sites Act on the recent application of Bradford metropolitan district for designation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reach a decision on the application submitted by Bradford council to designate traveller sites within the metropolitan district; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the city of Bradford metropolitan council's application for designated status when the local authority submits the outstanding response to its consultation exercise. The matter will then be dealt with as speedily as possible.

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that landlords reduce rents by an amount equivalent to the rates element after the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 8 February,Official Report, Vol. 166, column 756.

  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on whether Nirex or any other statutory body plans to dispose of nuclear waste(a) at or near Parys mountain or (b) any other location in the constituency of Ynys Wôns.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has no information about any plans to dispose of nuclear waste in the constituency of Ynys Môn. If the investigations being carried out by United Kingdom Nirex Ltd. at Sellafield and Dounreay are favourable, the company intends to develop a repository at one of these two sites. If both sites prove unsuitable Nirex will look elewhere, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Agencies
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the quality of service performance indicators that have been introduced into the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre and the historic royal palaces, respectively, since their establishment as agencies.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Quality of service indicators are being finalised and will be included in the corporate plans of both agencies which I shall be considering shortly. On the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith),Official Report, Vol. 165, col 369, which sets out the targets presently approved.

  Ancient Monuments
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites in total are protected as scheduled ancient monuments.

  Mr. Trippier
  At present, approximately 13,000 monument sites in England are included in the Secretary of State's schedule of ancient monuments.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend circular 8/87 to detail the ways in which local authorities can apply the principle of recognising the preservation of monuments as a material consideration in the planning process.

  Mr. Trippier
  No; but we shall shortly be issuing draft planning policy guidance on "Archaeology and Planning" for public consultation, which will include advice to local authorities on the weight to be given in planning decisions to the preservation of archaeological remains.
  62
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to instruct local authorities to include archaeological policies in their local and district.

  Mr. Trippier
  We will shortly be issuing a consultation paper on Archaeology and Planning. This will incorporate advice on development plan policies for archaeological sites.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue a planning circular giving guidance to local authorities about their use of planning conditions(a) to preserve and (b) to investigate archaeological sites.

  Mr. Trippier
  I hope shortly to announce the issue for public consultation of draft planning policy guidance on "Archaeology and Planning". This will include advice to local planning authorities on the use of planning conditions in this context. Some guidance is already extant in circular 1/85 on the use of planning conditions to allow archaeologists access to sites for the purposes of recording remains in advance of development.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy to give ancient landscapes the status of scheduled ancient monuments.

  Mr. Trippier
  This is not simply a question of policy. Any decision to schedule ancient landscapes would involve a number of considerations. The term "monument" is defined in section 61(7) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Assuming an ancient landscape falls within this definition, it would also need to be of national importance judged against the criteria to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on 29 January 1990,Official Report, col. 67–68.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table detailing the sites designated as scheduled ancient monuments in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The following is a table detailing the number of sites scheduled in each of the past five years.

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  49

  49

  10

  31

  30

  Standard Spending Assessments, Yorkshire
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the constituent parts of the standard spending assessment for the Harrogate borough council, York city council and Scarborough borough council.

  Mr. Chope
  The table sets out the elements of the standard spending assessments for the three authorities:
  63

  £ million

  Harrogate

  York

  Scarborough

  Other services:

  District level services

  8·13

  7·57

  6·71

  County level services

  0·07

  0·06

  0·06

  Flood Defence

  0·08

  0·11

  0·03

  Coast Protection

  0

  0

  0·19

  Interest Receipts

  -0·24

  -0·22

  -0·20

  Total other services

  8·04

  7·51

  6·79

  Capital Financing

  Debt Charges

  0·96

  0·83

  0·92

  Capital Expenditure charged to Revenue Account

  0·05

  0·01

  0·07

  Interest on Capital Receipts

  -0·38

  -0·33

  -0·36

  Total capital financing

  0·63

  0·51

  0·63

  Total SSA

  8·68

  8·02

  7·42

  Hertfordshire County Council
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will set out the number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees of Hertfordshire county council for the most recent date for which the county council has filed a manpower watch return.

  Mr. Chope
  Hertfordshire county council employed(a) 20,077 full-time and (b) 20,856 part-time staff in March 1989, the latest available date.

  Common Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to introduce legislation to safeguard common land on the basis of the common land forum.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 4 December 1989,Official Report, Vol 163, c. 35.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the results of his survey of right to buy performance in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Last November I announced that I would be reviewing the extent of right to buy delays in London and the effect of the tenant's sanction measures which came into force in March 1989.

  The tables show London boroughs' right to buy activity during September 1989. A total of 21,886 cases were

  Right to buy survey of London boroughs (i) Right to buy caseload September 1989

  Borough

  New Applications

  RTB2 Notices Outstanding

  S125 Notices Outstanding

  Completed Sales

  Completions Outstanding

  Memo: RTB Sales 1979–89 (Sep)

  City

  7

  0

  5

  17

  242

  1,160

  Barking

  108

  0

  11

  103

  900

  19,730

  Barnet

  65

  0

  13

  56

  381

  15,073

  Bexley

  29

  0

  20

  30

  949

  n/a

  Brent

  56

  79

  1,184

  65

  262

  12,107

  Bromley

  65

  0

  10

  56

  205

  16,963

  Camden

  127

  0

  674

  67

  1,352

  11,224

  Croydon

  67

  0

  0

  49

  195

  15,673

  64
  awaiting completion and boroughs had failed to issue 12,811 RTB2 and S125 notices within the statutory time limits. More than half the overdue notices were in Lambeth, Hackney, Brent, Southwark and Hounslow.

  The information collected about the use of the new tenant's sanction measures shows that 12 boroughs received no notices of delay, but tenant's sanction notices have been used extensively in boroughs where the number of overdue cases is high. In a single month, 18 boroughs received 271 initial notices (RTB6) and 53 operative notices of delay (RTB8). Another borough estimated that it had received 1,305 initial notices and 780 operative notices between March and November.

  The most common reason for serving initial notices was delay in completing sales, followed by delays in advising tenants of the price and other terms of sale (S125 notice) and by delays in confirming the existence of a right to buy (RTB2 notice).

  The Department has been receiving monthly reports from 12 monitored boroughs. The number of overdue RTB2 and S125 notices in these boroughs fell by 25 per cent. between March and September. The measures introduced last March have not only given tenants a sanction against unreasonable delays, but they have encouraged local authorities to improve their right to buy performance.

  I have decided that monthly monitoring should continue for Brent, Camden, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Richmond, Southwark and Tower Hamlets. Hammersmith, Waltham Forest, Ealing and Hillingdon, not monitored at the moment, are being asked to provide right to buy information for three months so that I can decide whether they should be monitored.
  65

  Borough

  New Applications

  RTB2 Notices Outstanding

  S125 Notices Outstanding

  Completed Sales

  Completions Outstanding

  Memo: RTB Sales 1979–89 (Sep)

  Ealing

  59

  69

  322

  67

  605

  12,451

  Enfield

  93

  11

  41

  93

  n/a

  6,212

  Greenwich

  54

  7

  180

  88

  900

  12,551

  Hackney

  104

  705

  1,338

  98

  n/a

  11,828

  Hammersmith

  57

  0

  474

  37

  1,585

  11,993

  Haringey

  122

  91

  37

  81

  507

  13,741

  Harrow

  30

  0

  0

  26

  60

  12,347

  Havering

  96

  0

  0

  48

  171

  12,944

  Hillingdon

  69

  25

  334

  40

  221

  11,852

  Hounslow

  64

  101

  808

  39

  539

  13,289

  Islington

  148

  45

  248

  112

  1,451

  12,297

  Kensington

  21

  0

  83

  26

  280

  1679

  Kingston

  17

  0

  19

  22

  135

  11,515

  Lambeth

  173

  1,085

  1,899

  31

  1,861

  11,211

  Lewisham

  118

  111

  415

  157

  1,833

  14,987

  Merton

  35

  0

  n/a

  31

  387

  12,534

  Newham

  76

  70

  650

  87

  706

  13,915

  Redbridge

  90

  n/a

  n/a

  49

  431

  n/a

  Richmond

  26

  0

  35

  24

  137

  12,394

  South wark

  258

  80

  913

  119

  98

  13,205

  Sutton

  31

  0

  141

  37

  165

  2,865

  Tower Hamlets

  84

  n/a

  n/a

  65

  n/a

  11,242

  Waltham Forest

  39

  2

  427

  71

  n/a

  12,790

  Wandsworth

  103

  0

  4

  132

  2,393

  17,576

  Westminster

  46

  16

  29

  132

  2,935

  13,233

  Total

  2,437

  2,497

  10,314

  2,155

  21,886

  1101,581

  n/a = Not available.

  1 Denotes an incomplete total.

  Notes

  (i) Bexley and Redbridge sell properties under the general consent rather than the right to buy legislation. Information here is based on equivalent stages to the right to buy process.

  (ii) Tower Hamlets were unable to provide complete information due to industrial action. Figures are for 4 of their neighbourhoods.

  (iii) Cumulative right to buy sales are from the table 2 statistics on right to buy and other council house sales.

  Right to buy survey of London boroughs (ii) Right to buy delay notices

  Borough

  Reason for RTB6

  Number Counter Notices Issued

  Number Counter Notices issued

  RTB6s received

  RTB2 delay

  S125 delay

  Completion delay

  RTB6s outstanding

  RTB8s received

  RTB8s outstanding

  Brent

  28

  1

  17

  10

  27

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Bromley

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  46

  2

  2

  42

  20

  26

  6

  2

  4

  Ealing

  11

  1

  2

  8

  11

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Enfield

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hackney

  70

  4

  30

  36

  18

  95

  23

  6

  49

  Hammersmith

  8

  0

  6

  2

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  8

  0

  8

  1

  3

  5

  4

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  12

  1

  5

  5

  6

  16

  10

  10

  12

  Islington

  30

  0

  5

  25

  10

  29

  2

  3

  9

  Lewisham

  30

  1

  1

  28

  24

  6

  3

  2

  1

  Newham

  7

  0

  6

  1

  7

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Richmond

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sutton

  8

  0

  8

  0

  7

  5

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Waltham Forest

  4

  0

  3

  1

  4

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth>

  3

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  271

  10

  95

  165

  147

  190

  53

  26

  77

  Notes:

  (i) the following boroughs received no delay notices: City, Barking, Barnet, Bexley, Croydon, Harrow, Havering, Kensington, Kingston, Merton, Redbridge and Westminster.

  (ii) Lambeth estimated that 1,305 RTB6s and 780 RTB8s were received between March and November 1989, ie 145 and 65 per month on average respectively.

  (iii) Haringey and Southwark were unable to provide information in the form requested.

  (iv) The figures for Tower Hamlets relate to 4 of their 7 neighbourhoods.
  66

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the advisability of co-disposal of radioactive waste with pig slurry infected with anthrax spores.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]: There would be no practical advantages in combining such disposals.

  Rugby Borough Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will receive a reply to his letter dated 27 November 1989 referring to Rugby borough council.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 1 February 1990]: I have written to my hon. Friend today.

  Cornwall County Council
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1984–85 the expenditure of Cornwall county council in(a) cash terms and (b) constant price terms.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Rate fund revenue account net current expenditure—Cornwall CC

  Cash

  Real (1) (1984–85 prices)

  £m

  £m

  1984–85

  144·6

  144·6

  1985–86

  152·8

  145·0

  1986–87

  169·4

  155·5

  1987–88

  187·8

  163·7

  1988–89

  202·5

  164·6

  1989–90

  218·2

  165·8

  (1) using GDP deflator.

  Mr. Neale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out a table showing for each year since 1984–85 the manpower watch return for Cornwall county council for the third quarter of each year.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The available information is as follows:

  Cornwall County Council (including the Isles of Stilly) All Services (excluding Police1) at September

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1984–85

  General Services

  7,738

  6,127

  13,865

  Magistrates Courts

  65

  22

  87

  Probation Staff

  68

  31

  99

  Total

  7,871

  6,180

  14,051

  1985–86

  General Services

  7,815

  5,775

  13,590

  Magistrates Courts

  64

  21

  85

  Probation Staff

  64

  24

  88

  Total

  7,943

  5,820

  13,763

  1986–87

  General Services

  7,880

  6,478

  14,358

  Magistrates Courts

  71

  20

  91

  Probation Staff

  68

  27

  95

  68

  Full-lime

  Part-time

  Total

  Total

  8,019

  6,525

  14,544

  1987–88

  General Services

  7,964

  6,980

  14,944

  Magistrates Courts

  68

  20

  88

  Probation Staff

  67

  28

  95

  Total

  8,099

  7,028

  15,127

  1988–89

  General Services

  7,924

  6,888

  14,812

  Magistrates Courts

  66

  24

  90

  Probation Staff

  65

  29

  94

  Total

  8,055

  6,941

  14,996

  1989–902

  General Services

  7,999

  6,951

  14,950

  Magistrates Courts

  65

  24

  89

  Probation Staff

  69

  30

  99

  Total

  8,133

  7,005

  15,138

  1 Devon and Cornwall have a joint police authority

  2 Figures for September 1989 are in fact the latest available.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average outstanding mortgage in 1989–90 in(a) England and (b) each region.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The estimated average balance outstanding on building society mortgages in the United Kingdom at the end of 1988 was £21,000. Comparable information is not available for other lenders or below national level.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the problems in financial control systems which have led to the overspend by the Housing Corporation in 1989–90.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 30 January (Official Report, column 175) that the capital resources available to the Housing Corporation in 1989–90 would be increased by £120 million, with a corresponding reduction in 1990–91, to reflect a greater speeding up of housing schemes by housing associations than had been forecast. This adjustment is not expected to affect the Housing Corporation's total expenditure and output over the two years taken together.

  An independent examination of the Housing Corporation's financial systems in the autumn of 1989 found that the corporation's expenditure forecasting model was soundly based. The model has now been updated to take account of faster development times. The Housing Corporation will also be introducing cash planning targets for associations in 1990–91 which will enable the corporation more accurately to predict and control the flow of expenditure.

SCOTLAND

  Local Enterprise Councils
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the procedures to be used to monitor expenditure by local enterprise councils.
  69
  Mr. Lang
  Once in operation, local enterprise companies will work to annual budgets agreed initially with the Training Agency and the Scottish Development Agency, and subsequently with Scottish Enterprise. Monitoring of expenditure within the agreed budgets will primarily be the responsibility of the local enterprise company itself. In addition, prior to the vesting of Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Development Agency and the Training Agency will jointly monitor local enterprise companies' performance through the local enterprise company unit; and thereafter, Scottish Enterprise will have this function. Such monitoring will be selective and will focus on propriety and whether management arrangements agreed with the local enterprise company in its business plan are functioning effectively and are promoting value for money.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the extent of preventable loss arising from theft or misappropriation in his Department;

  (2) whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss-prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Scottish Office has developed and maintains controls to prevent fraud and to ensure that if it does occur it will be detected promptly. It is the responsibility of all staff to ensure that departmental funds are not misappropriated. The activities of the Scottish Office audit unit include responsibility to satisfy the accounting officer for Scottish Office administration costs that financial management and control systems are adequate. Nine of the audit unit staff hold professional qualifications and a further 15 are qualified to Treasury-approved training standards. No specific assessment of preventable losses has been made.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in manufacturing industry in 1979; how many there were at the latest date for which figures are available; and what percentage of the total labour force they constituted on each occasion.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The table gives the number of employees in employment in manufacturing industries in Scotland in September 1979 and 1989, the latest date for which information is available. The figures are also shown expressed as a percentage of all employees in employment and as a percentage of the civilian work force in employment on these dates.

  September

  1979

  1989

  Employees in employment in manufacturing industries in Scotland—thousands

  602

  419

  Scottish manufacturing employment as a percentage of:—

  all employees in employment

  29

  22

  the civilian work force in employment

  27

  19

  Source:

  Department of Employment.
  70
  Note:

  The civilian work force in employment comprises employees in employment, the self-employed and those on Government work-related training schemes.

  Earnings
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing gross average weekly earnings for full-time male employees on adult rates in Scotland for every year from 1979 to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time male employees on adult rates in Scotland, in April of each year

  £ per week

  1979

  101·2

  1980

  123·1

  1981

  140·0

  1982

  154·5

  1983

  167·5

  1984

  178·7

  1985

  189·7

  1986

  201·3

  1987

  214·6

  1988

  233·3

  1989

  251·2

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Service Industries
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of employees in service industries in Scotland in June 1979 and at present, broken down into separate totals for men, women, full-time employees, part-time employees and those on Government training schemes.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The table gives the number of employees in employment for June 1979 and September 1989, the latest available date. Figures are given separately for all men and for women working full time and part time. Information on the number of men working part time is available only for years for which there is a census of employment. Estimates of employees in employment include those with a contract of employment who are on Government work-related training schemes. There is no separate information available on the number of employees in Scotland in the service industries who are also on Government work-related training schemes.

  Employees in employment in the service industries in Scotland

  Thousands

  June 1979

  September 1989

  Males1

  544

  562

  Female full-time

  385

  415

  Female part-time

  295

  320

  Total

  1,224

  1,297

  Source: Department of Employment.

  1 Includes full and part-time male employees. The latest census of employment shows that in September 1987 there were 62,000 part-time male employees and 486,000 full-time male employees in the service industries in Scotland.

  Industrial Output
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table with an index of industrial output for Scotland, taking 1979 = 100, giving a separate

  Output of Production Industries—Scotland

  Index (1979=100)

  Annual percentage change1

  Production

  Energy and water

  Manufacturing

  Production

  Energy and water

  Manufacturing

  1979

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  93·9

  96·8

  93·3

  -6·1

  -3·2

  -6·7

  1981

  91·9

  97·2

  90·8

  -2·1

  0·5

  -2·7

  1982

  92·4

  96·9

  91·5

  0·6

  -0·3

  0·7

  1983

  92·2

  99·9

  90·5

  -0·3

  3·0

  -1·1

  1984

  95·9

  102·2

  94·4

  4·0

  2·3

  4·4

  1985

  98·5

  108·1

  96·4

  2·8

  5·7

  2·1

  1986

  96·2

  105·1

  94·3

  -2·3

  -2·8

  -2·2

  1987

  98·2

  102·4

  97·2

  2·1

  -2·5

  3·1

  1988

  105·7

  108·4

  1050

  7·6

  5·8

  8·0

  Source: Index of Industrial Production and Construction for Scotland.

  1Year on year change.

  Manual Workers
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the average gross hourly earnings in Scotland for full-time manual workers, full-time non-manual workers, part-time manual workers and part-time non-manual workers at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The latest available information, for April 1989, is provided in the table:

  Average gross hourly earnings (excluding overtime) of employees in Scotland on adult rates

  £ per hour

  Full-time manual employees

  4·23

  Full-time non·manual employees

  6·28

  Part-time manual employees

  2·87

  Part-time non-manual employees

  4·33

  Source: New Earnings Survey April 1989.

  Private Schools (Rating)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to enact measures to bring the non-domestic rating system as it applies to private school accommodation in line with the practice south of the border.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Certain questions about the treatment for valuation and rating purposes of pupil accommodation at boarding schools in Scotland are currently the subject of appeal to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. Against the background of my general desire to secure harmonisation between Scotland and England, I am considering whether there are any steps I should take.

  Prison Ombudsman
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to appoint a prison ombudsman; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. I and my Department will be considering the relevance to the Scottish situation of the recommendations, including the one relating to the creation of a prison ombudsman, contained in the recently published Home Office working group report on an improved system of grievance procedures for prisoners' complaints and requests.
  72
  breakdown for production industries, divisions 1–4, energy and water supply and manufacturing, divisions 2–4 and showing the changes for each year from 1979 till the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is in the table.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ask the chief constables for reports detailing the cost per policeman of deploying police officers on ambulance duties within their spheres of authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) is currently considering the basis on which forces should cost the assistance given in relation to the ambulance dispute and in the light of draft guidance prepared by the Scottish Home and Health Department which reflects previously agreed practice.

  Beaches (Pollution)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a list of the 10 worst polluted beaches and give details of the most recent measurements of pollution on each of these beaches.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The condition of beaches is a matter for the local district or islands council while river purification authorities are concerned with the quality of waters. River purification boards monitor waters for compliance with standards set in the EC bathing water directive. For details in respect of the 23 identified waters in Scotland, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 25 January 1990, at columns 844–45.

  Rivers (Pollution)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a list of the 20 worst polluted rivers and give details of the more recent measurements of pollution in each of these rivers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Day-to-day control of pollution of rivers is the responsibility of the river purification authorities. Annual reports of the seven river purification boards contain detailed information about pollution in their areas and are available in the Library. The Scottish Development Department, in co-operation with the river purification boards, publishes periodic reports which give a broad assessment of the condition of Scottish waters. The last of these, also available in the
  73
  Library, was produced in 1985, and the hon. Member may like to refer to the maps contained in it which show the lengths of rivers in each of four categories. A further report, based on conditions found during the current year, is now being planned.

  Bankruptcy
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what measures the accountant in bankruptcy assesses remuneration of a trustee in sequestration, in cases where the remuneration of the trustee is to be met from moneys provided by Parliament; and if there is any specific maximum hourly rate for chartered accountants and unqualified persons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In terms of section 53(4) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 the accountant in bankruptcy is required in assessing remuneration to have regard to the work which was reasonably undertaken by the trustee in relation to the value of the debtor's estate and the extent of his responsibilities in administering that estate. There are no specific maximum hourly rates laid down for this work.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since the commencement of the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 1985 the total sum paid out of moneys provided by Parliament in terms of section 76 of the said Act.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Gross expenditure, including payments to trustees and the administration costs of the office of the accountant of court and the office of accountant in bankruptcy, has been as follows:

  Financial year

  Gross expenditure (£'000)

  1986–87

  256

  1987–88

  706

  1988–89

  2,918

  Sequestration
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many decrees of sequestration there have been in Scotland for each year since 1974.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of sequestrations registered annually by the accountant in bankruptcy until 1 April 1986 under the provisions of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913 and thereafter under the provisions of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of awards registered

  1974

  104

  1975

  148

  1976

  128

  1977

  132

  1978

  130

  1979

  105

  1980

  151

  1981

  185

  1982

  217

  1983

  280

  1984

  296

  74

  Year

  Number of awards registered

  1985

  298

  1986

  437

  1987

  826

  1988

  1,420

  1989

  2,294

  The 1985 Act introduced in Scotland provisions for the public funding of bankruptcies where there are insufficient assets in the bankrupt's estate to meet the expenses of sequestration. No such facility was available under the 1913 Act, and this is reflected in the increase in sequestrations registered from 1986 onwards.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1974 the total sum paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for remuneration for trustees in sequestration.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The remuneration from public funds of trustees in sequestration was introduced by provisions of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 which came into effect on 1 April 1986. Gross payments made these provisions to trustees are as follows:—

  Financial Year

  Gross Payments (£'000)

  1986–87

  13

  1987–88

  418

  1988–89

  2,415

  Buses (Women Travellers)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will require bidders for bus companies to include in their bids their proposed policy on safety of women travellers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. In addition to necessary company and financial details, bidders will be required to give information on their general employment policy, their proposals regarding the disabled and elderly, and a statement of their future intentions for the company. There are already strict safety requirements governing all bus operators in the interests of all bus travellers. Bus operators require an operator's licence and buses must be tested annually and are also subject to spot checks on the road. If sufficient services are not available commercially local authorities have powers to subsidise those services they consider socially necessary, including, for example, late evening or night services.

  Paedophiles
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will set up a special police unit or units specialising in the detection and elimination of the criminal activities of paedophiles.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am aware that chief constables place a high priority on investigations into criminal activities against children. The question whether a special unit or units would help in this task is an operational matter for them to decide.

  Land Use
  Mr McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government will initiate a comprehensive review of public support for land uses such as agriculture and forestry in Scotland, and their effects on wildlife and the countryside, with a view to reducing conflict between conservation and these land uses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State in exercising his functions in relation to agriculture and forestry has a duty to take environmental considerations into account. The Government keep under review their various measures of support for agriculture and forestry and these are increasingly directed at conservation or enhancement of the environment.

  Green Pound
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to arrange for the green pound to be introduced into the European monetary system in order to restrict the disadvantage of Scottish farmers from 20 to 6 per cent. and thereafter to parity.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The entry of sterling into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system would have no direct effect on green rates or agricultural support prices. The disadvantage to our producers will be overcome by reducing monetary gaps through devaluing the green pound. Green currency devaluations are normally considered in the EC price-fixing negotiations. In the current round we shall be seeking a substantial devaluation as part of our commitment to remove all monetary gaps by the end of 1992.

  Flood Damage
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to recompense farmers of Scotland in the short term of flood damage and other losses caused by recent inclement weather.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have every sympathy for farmers who sustained damage from the latest storms and floods. Indeed, the floods are so recent that damage is still hidden by water so that many will not yet know the full extent of their losses. My noble Friend the Minister of State has called for full reports as soon as practicable. In the meantime, it is important to stress that successive Governments have followed well-established policy not to pay compensation to farmers for the effects of severe weather, particularly where risks are insurable. Assistance is however available under the farm capital grant schemes. These schemes will be operated as flexibly as the rules will allow to take account of the effects of the storms.

  Medical Priority Status
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a commission to examine the plight of elderly and disabled people who have top medical priority status and yet who cannot be immediately rehoused.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: Individual authorities are required by
  76
  statute to consider the housing needs of their areas and to have regard to the special needs of chronically sick or disabled persons. My right hon. and learned Friend does not believe that a commission would assist authorities in this duty. Individual authorities are themselves best placed to determine particular needs and to identify solutions for meeting those needs either in council housing or other housing.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of people on council waiting lists who have top medical priority status.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that councils have the resources to rehouse elderly and disabled residents with top medical priority status in suitable housing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: Housing capital allocations to local authorities take account of their overall housing needs as set out in their housing plans and capital programmes. Within the allocations made it is the responsibility of local authorities to decide how the resources should be used in the light of local priorities.

  Training Agency Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the budget for each Training Agency scheme in Scotland in 1990–91; and what it was in 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 5 February 1990]: It is possible to provide full-year budgets for Training Agency schemes in Scotland only for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91. The planned expenditure for 1988–89 for the Training Commission was £210,083,000: a detailed breakdown of Training Agency scheme budgets in Scotland is not available for that year. The information available is set out in the table.

  Training Agency Budgets (Scotland): £'000s

  Planned expenditure

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Employment Training

  130,154

  112,850

  Employment Rehabilitation

  900

  900

  Residual and Other Training Schemes

  1,945

  145

  Youth Training Scheme

  104,550

  87,757

  Community Industry

  1

  2,879

  Business Growth Training

  4,240

  5,436

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme

  1

  14,722

  School/Industry Compacts

  1

  1,453

  Higher Education Programmes

  869

  1,207

  Training and Vocational Education Initiative

  12,020

  13,409

  Training and Education Support Programmes

  5,483

  5,168

  Marketing, Advertising and Publicity

  2,112

  2,157

  Research and Evaluation

  674

  686

  Administrative Costs

  13,752

  18,516

  Total

  276,699

  267,285

  1 Budget centrally administered 1989–90.

EMPLOYMENT

  Workplace Nurseries
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how may workplace nurseries exist; and what is the regional distribution of these nurseries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not available. Figures in the "IMS Manpower Commentary No. 43, Retaining Women Employees" suggest that the percentage of organisations currently providing workplace nurseries is small, only about 3 per cent. However, indications are that the provision of such facilities is growing.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Health and Safety Executive inspectors have responsibility for the construction industry(a) now and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 December 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, the Health and Safety Executive had 103 inspectors regularly engaged on the inspection of construction activities. On 1 January 1980, the total was 87.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the breakdown of expenditure within the Health and Safety Executive's latest budget by industry classification.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. The expenditure of the Health and Safety Executive is not broken down by standard industrial classification.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what functions of the Health and Safety Executive are currently being placed within the remit of local authorities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Under the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989, from 1 April 1990, local authorities will be responsible for the enforcement of health and safety legislation for certain additional activities including various leisure activities; cosmetic and therapeutic treatments, display or demonstration of goods at an exhibition; church worship and religious meetings; and certain internal construction work.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of the following departmental publications; and what was their intended respective purpose(a) "People and Companies, Employee Involvement in Britain", (b) "Small Firms in Britain" and (c) the "United Kingdom in Europe, People and Progress Fact Pack".

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost of producing "People and Companies, Employee Involvement in Britain", was £83,000 minus what has been recouped from this being a priced publication (HMSO £5); the cost of producing "Small Firms in Britain" was £77,000; and the cost of the "United Kingdom in Europe, People and Progress Fact Pack" was £9,000.
  78
  The purpose of "People and Companies" was to describe the British approach to employee involvement and explain Government policy on the subject.

  "Small Firms in Britain" was produced to meet the needs of advisory agencies, chambers of commerce and other representative organisations, as well as professional and academic bodies for an authoritative report on the key statistics, issues and trends in the small business sector, and the basis of the Government's policies and programmes to support small businesses.

  The purpose of the "United Kingdom in Europe Fact Pack" was to explain the Government's concerns about the European Commission's proposed social charter; and to set out the approach to encouraging employment, individual opportunity and enterprise the Government believe will best enable Britain, as a full and active member of the European Community, to prosper in a Europe without barriers.

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to seek to extend the remit of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to Scotland.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The remit of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is kept under review.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if employers' financial contributions to employment training are to be increased in 1990–91 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Employers' financial contributions to employment training are for local negotiation. The Government aim to encourage more employers to participate in employment training and for employers to make a greater investment in training. The formation of training and enterprise councils will be a major step towards those objectives.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of claimants who have had their(a) benefit claim referred to an adjudication office and (b) benefit withdrawn as a result of refusing a place on an employment training scheme in terms of its actively seeking work conditions.

  Mr. Eggar
  Employment training is a voluntary programme. Social security legislation does not provide for disqualification or disallowance of unemployment benefit where a person refuses to apply for or accept a place on employment training.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of continuing training grants made available in respect of trainees recruited by employees before completion of the employment training action plan between September 1988 and December 1989 inclusive for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested Js riot available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the companies that have withdrawn from employment training between January 1989 and December 1989 for Great Britain.
  79
  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number for employment training of(a) training agents and (b) training managers in Great Britain on the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As at 8 February 1990 there were 191 training agents and 1,362 training managers participating in employment training.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of employment training trainees who entered permanent employment in the period December 1988 to December 1989 for Great Britain.

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

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of training agents that went into receivership between September 1988 and December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No training agents in employment training went into receivership between September 1988 and December 1989.

  YTS
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total number of(a) YTS trainees with employment contracts in December 1989 and for each of the standard regions, Scotland, Wales and Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is in the table.

  Numbers of trainees with employed status, in training at 31 December 1989

  Number

  Great Britain

  114,421

  South East

  16,725

  London

  8,450

  South West

  10,258

  West Midlands

  12,483

  East Midlands and Eastern

  15,772

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12,817

  North West

  17,617

  Northern

  4,666

  Wales

  6,338

  Scotland

  9,295

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which are the 10 largest managing agents involved in YTS; what is the total number of trainees contracted to them; and what was the total Government expenditure on them in December 1989 for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The table shows the 10 largest single contract managing agents in Great Britain, together with the number of agreed places.

  Managing Agents

  Agreed Places

  Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)

  34,000

  Non-Electrical Programme

  80

  Managing Agents

  Agreed Places

  CITB

  Electrical Programme

  9,500

  Clothing and Allied Products Industry Training Board

  7,228

  Sight and Sound

  4,515

  Motor Agents Association

  4,000

  Association of British Travel Agents

  2,650

  British Rail

  1,900

  British Association of Professional Hairdressing Employers

  1,830

  Hairdressing Training Association

  1,760

  County of Avon Youth Training Scheme

  1,750

  Total number of places

  69,133

  The total amount paid to these managing agents during December 1989 was £11,516,489·93.

  YTS and Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline the steps being taken to minimise the cost of paying management fees for unfilled places on YTS and employment training.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Management fees are not paid for employment training places. Under current YTS rules, there is provision for recovering management fees for unfilled YTS places. This is done wherever appropriate.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the amount of fees paid to Deloitte, Haskins and Sells up to 31 October 1989 for the initial feasibility study and for the work on the offer for sale of the Skills Training Agency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 31 October 1989, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells had been paid fees of £132,425 for the feasibility study, and fees of £85,023 for work associated with the offer for sale. Both figures exclude expenses and VAT.

  Training Agency
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of employees in the Training Agency and previously the Manpower Services Commission in each of the years 1984–85 to 1989–90 outturn and planned for 1990–91 to 1992–93, planned for Great Britain.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of permanent employees in the Training Agency in 1988–89 and planned numbers up to 1992–93, are as follows:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  12,462

  12,009

  9,719

  9,214

  9,214

  Information for earlier years is not available on a comparable basis.

  HIV Testing
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance his Department has issued on the use of pre-employment HIV testing by employers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The booklet "AIDS and Employment" published by my Department and the Health and Safety Executive in 1986 advises employers that, since in almost all occupations there is no risk of infected persons passing on HIV to others, having the virus or belonging to a particular group is not a reason for being treated differently from any other job applicants. It follows from this advice that there is generally no reason for employers to require a job applicant to take an HIV antibody test. Further updated guidance on "AIDS and the Workplace" is to be published shortly.

  Training Costs
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated gross cost per trainee week for employers, on a comparable basis to the figures in Cm 1006 of £50 and £33 for the gross public cost per trainee week, for(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1992–93; and what is the likely overall cost to employers of the transfer of costs.

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  581

  582

  581

  582

  581

  582

  581

  582

  Table 1. Applications Registered

  Applications registered

  822

  15

  4,760

  12

  421

  6

  334

  3

  Table 2. Outcome of applications to industrial tribunals:

  ACAS Settlement

  1291

  6

  2907

  3

  33,776

  2

  88

  2

  Other withdrawal

  150

  4

  151

  4

  186

  2

  143

  2

  Successful

  56

  7

  51

  2

  35

  —

  15

  2

  Dismissed out of scope

  115

  1

  31

  1

  48

  —

  12

  —

  Dismissed other reasons

  110

  6

  145

  3

  72

  2

  73

  1

  Disposed of otherwise

  8

  —

  138

  —

  5

  —

  5

  —

  Total

  730

  24

  1,423

  13

  4,122

  6

  336

  7

  Notes on tables:

  581 = complaints under Section 58 (1) (a) and (b)

  582 = complaints under Section 58 (1) (c)

  1 including multiple application of c. 125.

  2 including multiple application of c. 780.

  3 including multiple application of c. 3400.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Workfare
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will institute a further study of workfare in the United States of America to investigate how workfare has helped in recent years to alleviate the problems associated with single-parent families and paternal maintenance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  While we are, of course, interested in the arrangements made by other countries for lone-parent families, we have no plans to institute a study of workfare. Lone parents in the United Kingdom are not required to be available for work as a condition of receiving benefit. They are able to decide for themselves what is best for them and their children and we believe this is right. But maintenance is also very important. We are particularly concerned about the number of lone-parent
  82
  Mr. Nicholls
  An increasing element of empoloyer contributions is expected. It is impossible to forecast the gross cost per trainee week for employers, as this depends on the efficiency with which TECs, providers and employers can deliver training.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of applications to industrial tribunals under section 58 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 in the period 1984 to 1988 and indicate how many were complaints under section 58(1)(a) and (b) compared with the number under section 58 (1) (c); and if he will give the outcome of these cases under the two separate categories and indicate (a) the number of Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service conciliated settlements, (b) withdrawal. not via Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, (c) successful at tribunal hearing, (d) dismissed at tribunal out of scope, (e) dismissed at tribunal hearing, other reasons and (f) disposed of otherwise.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 December 1989, c. 245–46]: I regret that some of the figures for 1987–88 in table 2 of the original reply were incorrect. The correct figures are set out in the table.

  families on benefit here who receive little or no maintenance. Regular payments of maintenance can be a great help to lone parents who work to move from dependence on benefit into work. We are therefore examining the whole maintenance system to establish how it can be improved. As part of this process 'we are examining maintenance arrangements abroad, including those in the United States, to see whether there are any lessons to be learned from them.

  Computer Security
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department has, and is taking to improve the security of its computer systems.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  For unclassified but sensitive systems the Department is expected to follow Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency guidance covering all aspects of IT security and the application of this has been tightened recently. CCTA advice is kept
  83
  under continuous review and is based on analysis of security risks and requirements using structured methods such as CCTA's risk analysis and management methodology (CRAMM), which has also been made commercially available.

  More stringent conditions apply to classified systems.

  Preventable Loss
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will list the number of professionally qualified loss-prevention staff employed by his Department and the qualifications held by such staff, excluding qualifications obtained during police or military service.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  It is not possible to give an answer in the form requested as the Department does not employ a specific class of loss prevention officers. There is a general exhortation to all staff to take proper care of property and services for which they are responsible and for line managers to ensure that there is sound management of such resources. Internal audit procedures are undertaken by staff with appropriate training and security guard services are provided by a mixture of departmental staff and private companies.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to meet the needs of very severly disabled people with high care cost.

  Mr. Scott
  The arrangements proposed in "Caring for People" (Cm. 849) by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health are designed to enable local authorities to provide help with the care needs of very severely disabled people. Financial help with the costs of domestic assistance and personal care is currently also available through the independent living fund.

  Disability Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that claimants of the care element of the new disability allowance will receive invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We propose that people who care for recipients of the highest or intermediate level of care component of the new disability allowance will receive invalid care allowance, provided they satisfy the conditions of entitlement.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in(a) west Leeds, (b) Leeds, (c) west Yorkshire and (d) England are in receipt of family credit; what estimated proportion these families represent of those entitled to this benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information about the familes receiving family credit is as follows:84

  Number who, at the time their award was made, were living in:

  number

  a. West Leeds

  12,800

  b. Leeds

  24,500

  c. West Yorkshire

  315,600

  d. England

  257,000

  1 Total in the area covered by the Leeds West, Leeds North West and Leeds North local Social Security offices.

  2 Total in the area covered by all the local Social Security offices in Leeds.

  3 Total in the area covered by all the Social Security offices in West Yorkshire.

  Information about the total number of families eligible for family credit can be obtained only for Great Britain, and only retrospectively, from family expenditure survey data.

  Benefits
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of persons dependent on both social security and housing rebates in 1979–80 and 1989–90 and the forecast for 1990–91.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the precise form requested, since claimants may receive more than one benefit at any one time, and may also receive benefit for one or more dependants. Broad-based survey data suggest, however, that in 1979, and also in 1987, the latest year for which such estimates are available, the social security system contributed to the incomes or family incomes of around 38 million people. For 1989–90 and 1990–91 figures for the estimated average number of people receiving individual benefits, including housing benefit, are shown in the table:

  Estimated numbers receiving social security benefits at any one time1 2

  thousands

  1979–80

  1989–90

  1990–916

  Retirement pension

  8,680

  9,825

  9,940

  Widows' benefits

  490

  370

  360

  Unemployment benefit

  550

  415

  455

  Sickness benefit

  490

  105

  105

  Invalidity benefit

  620

  1,185

  1,265

  Industrial disablement benefit

  200

  340

  355

  Industrial death benefit

  30

  30

  25

  Maternity allowance

  115

  15

  15

  Non-contributory retirement pension

  55

  35

  35

  War pension

  370

  255

  250

  Attendance allowance

  285

  796

  880

  Invalid care allowance

  5

  110

  130

  Severe disablement allowance

  —

  265

  270

  Non-contributory invalidity pension

  165

  —

  —

  Mobility allowance

  140

  615

  655

  Income support

  —

  4,075

  4,100

  Supplementary benefit3

  2,920

  —

  —

  Child benefit4

  13,330

  12,140

  12,155

  Family credit

  —

  315

  325

  Family income supplement

  80

  —

  —

  Housing benefit5

  rent rebate

  1,205

  3,115

  3,120

  rent allowance

  220

  1,040

  1,050

  rate rebate

  3,065

  4,480

  —

  Community charge benefit/rebate

  —

  930

  7,895

  1 Source: Public Expenditure White Papers 1984 and 1990.

  2 Beneficiaries may be receiving more than one benefit at any one time.

  3 Includes housing benefit supplement recipients who are also included in the figures for housing benefit recipients.
  85
  4 Numbers of children in families receiving child benefit, including those also receiving one parent benefit.

  5 There is a significant overlap: most households getting help with rent also receive a rate rebate.

  6 Forecast.

  Loan Sharks
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations the Minister for Social Security and the disabled has had about the increasing dependence on loan sharks of people who live on state benefits; what reply he is sending; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  None.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he proposes to change the capital rule for community charge rebate to take account of the fact that the charge is being levied on individuals whereas the capital rule is applied to couples jointly.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to change the rule for Community charge benefit for couples. It is a fundamental principle of the income-related benefit schemes that the partners in a married or unmarried couple are treated as sharing their income and capital resources. The fact that the community charge is being levied on individuals does not affect this principle.

  Departmental Leaflets
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many copies of leaflet SB 1 and IS 100 were printed for publication in October 1989; how many correction leaflets IS 100 indicating different rates for the enhanced pensioner premium were printed; what were the reasons for the incorrect rates being published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In October 1989 3,322,000 copies of leaflet SB1 were printed, 4,525,668 copies of leaflet IS 100 were printed and 2,460,000 copies of the correction leaflet for IS 100 were printed because of a proof-reading error in the original leaflet.

  Pensioner Premium
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the criteria for the payment of the enhanced pensioner premium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The enhanced pensioner premium is part of the premium structure in income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit. From April 1990, this premium will be fixed at £14·40 a week for a single person and £21·60 for couples. It is awarded automatically when the claimant, or where appropriate, his partner, reaches the age of 75 years, and replaces the pensioner premium which is paid at a lower rate. Where a higher rate premium is in payment, that premium will continue. When it was introduced last October, this improvement provided extra benefit, for those who qualified for it, of up to £2·50 a week for single people and £3·50 a week for couples in time for the winter months. At the same time we increased the higher 86
  pensioner premium by the same amounts. This premium applied, automatically, to all income-related benefit recipients at the age of 80 years, and to disabled people aged 60 to 79 years. Overall, we estimate that 2·6 million people, including spouses, benefited from these substantial improvements.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments have been made so far during the 1989–90 winter; which Department of Social Security offices made such payments; and which weather stations covered these Departments of Social Security offices.

  Mr. Scott
  The latest information available relates to the two months ending 31 December 1989, by which time social fund cold weather payments totalling £73,500 had been made. The national climatological message (NCM) stations that have had an average temperature of 0 deg C for a seven-day period during this winter and the Department's local offices linked to them are shown in the table:

  NCM Station and Local Office

  Glasgow Airport

  Airdrie

  Bellshill

  Clydebank

  Coatbridge

  Dumbarton

  East Kilbride

  Glasgow;

  Anniesland

  Bridgeton

  City

  Craigton

  Cranstonhill

  Cumbernauld

  Laurieston

  Maryhill

  Parkhead

  Partick

  Provan

  Rutherglen

  South Side

  Springburn

  Greenock

  Hamilton

  Johnstone

  Motherwell

  Paisley

  Port Glasgow

  Gatwick Airport

  Crawley

  Epsom

  Guildford

  Redhill

  Tunbridge Wells

  Woking

  Easthampstead

  Aldershot

  Basingstoke

  Bracknell

  Newbury

  Reading

  Dumfries (Drungans)

  Dumfries

  Fort William

  Fort William

  Oban

  87

  Kinloss

  Elgin

  Invernes

  Lerwick

  Lerwick

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for reduced earnings allowance have been allowed each year since the benefit was established; how many people currently receive reduced earnings allowance; how many recipients are above pensionable age; how many are employed earners; and how many are on income support.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is as follows. The net estimated number of reduced earnings allowance awards made from 1 October 1986 (when the benefit was introduced) to 1 April 1987 was about 5,000. The corresponding figures for the years 1987–88 and 1988–89 were 11,000 and 14,400. Of the 150,000 people estimated to receive the allowance (which includes those who previously received special hardship allowance), approaching 60,000 are over pensionable age. Of those under pensionable age, approximately one in four is estimated to be in work. No information is available on the numbers of REA recipients who also receive income support.

  Community Care
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the community care grant budget had been spent by each Merseyside office on 1 December 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  Information about the levels of expenditure in each local office from the community care grants budgets is available in the Library.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether claimants can benefit from employment on trial if during the 26 weeks prior to a trial period they were participating in an employment training scheme or a YTS scheme, with and without employee status.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Those in either employment training or YTS without employee status during the 26 weeks before commencing employment may benefit from the employment on trial provisions.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will answer the letter from the hon. Member for Birkenhead dated 12 August 1989 and followed up on 1 December 1989 about his constituent Robert Holmes, of 4 Clarence road, Birkenhead.

  Mr. Newton
  I have written to the hon. Member today on the point of policy he raised in his correspondence, and I regret that it has taken some time to consider.

  Resettlement Agency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the quality of service performance indicators that have been introduced into the Resettlement Agency since its establishment as an agency.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Resettlement Agency has been set a target to devise a scheme to assist resettlement unit managers to compare the effectiveness of units on a common basis. It also intends to undertake a study to examine clients' perceptions in an effort to help establish common standards for the units.

  Local Offices (Interpreters)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate for each of the Department's local offices in the Greater Manchester area his estimate of the percentage of callers who have a very low understanding of the English language; and whether these offices maintain lists of staff who are willing and able to act as interpreters for ethnic minority customers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  All the 23 DSS local offices in the Greater Manchester area estimate that up to 10 per cent. of their callers have a very low understanding of the English language. Of these, 12 offices—Bury, Cheetham, Chorlton, Failsworth, Farnworth, Hyde, Openshaw, Rochdale, Rusholme, Sale, Stockport North and Wigan—hold lists of staff willing and able to interpret for ethnic minority customers. Eleven offices—Ashton, Bolton, Leigh, Longsight, Manchester (Central), Middleton, Oldham, Salford North, Salford South, Stockport South and Wythenshawe—maintain effective arrangements for communicating with customers who have a very low understanding of the English language by other methods, such as the use of volunteer interpreters from the local community, including relatives and friends.

  Transitional Benefit
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are still in receipt of transitional benefit payments(a) in west Yorkshire and (b) throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: It is estimated that immediately before the annual benefits uprating this April, the number of claimants in Great Britain receiving income support transitional protection will have reduced to under 500,000. A breakdown of this figure by individual regions or parts of regions is not available.

  At the end of January, 99,897 applicants in Great Britain were receiving housing benefit transitional protection. This figure included 9,457 applicants in west Yorkshire.

  Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the amount in transitional payment benefit paid per person since its introduction; and if he will make a statement.
  89
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: Just over £58 million has been paid out to 202,797 recipients of housing benefit transitional payments since July 1988, averaging £4·19 a week.

  Income support statutory transitional protection paid to former supplementary benefit recipients is estimated to amount to some £340 million from April 1988 to the end of this financial year. Further information on these payments is not available in the form requested. However, during the period protection has been paid to just over 1·5 million claimants. The average weekly amount per claimant immediately after the April 1989 uprating is estimated at £3·30.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the transitional benefit payments to end; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: The length of time for which individuals will need protection cannot be predicted.

  Income support normal transitional protection reduces as the claimant's total benefit income under the new scheme catches up with that under the former supplementary benefit scheme either at annual upratings or through changes in circumstances. Special transitional protection does not normally erode at all; it is uprated annually.

  Special arrangements for protecting ordinary boarders through their income support will have ceased by March 1990 in the majority of cases. However, longer-term arrangements exist for people living in supported lodgings while they remain in the support environment and for hostel dwellers who were eligible for special transitional payments from October 1989 until they leave the hostel. In both cases payments cease if income support entitlement ceases or if the claimant's normal benefit entitlement reaches the protected level.

  We have made it clear from the beginning that housing benefit transitional payments will be reduced as increases in other benefits make them less necessary. We have decided on a flat rate reduction of £2·00 in these payments from April. This is the same level of reduction as the one applied in 1989 and, because of this occasion social security benefits are being increased by larger amounts, will ensure that the vast majority of recipients gain overall in cash terms from the uprating.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Safety
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigation his Department is making of Dutch, Danish and German research programmes into testing for food safety to ensure that the United Kingdom based food processing and production industry does not suffer adversely from foreign competition following the closure of the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom has initiated a major European concerted activity relating to food safety, on, "Predictive Growth and Survival of Micro-organisms in Foods", which is to be supported under the European Commission's FLAIR programme and will be operational in 1990. This activity will provide an opportunity to draw 90
  on all relevant European data of benefit to the United Kingdom food processing and production industry and thus protect its competitive position.

  Fishing (Greenland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect to receive a reply to his letter of 9 January, concerning British fishing in Greenland waters.

  Mr. Curry
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter of 9 January 1990 concerning British fishing in Greenland waters was dispatched on 7 February 1990.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library copies of instructions given by him to local authorities and the state veterinary service concerning the inspection of bovines for bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the payment of compensation in respect of confirmed and unconfirmed cases.

  Mr. Maclean
  Instructions to the state veterinary service are for internal use and not appropriate for placing in the Library. Where local authorities have enforcement responsibilities for legislation relating to BSE, they are provided with the appropriate statutory instruments. In addition, the Ministry's divisional veterinary officers have ensured that meat inspection authorities at non-EC approved slaughterhouses are aware of BSE, its clinical signs and the action they should take if they identify suspected cases.

  Animal Foodstuffs
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to indicate to other countries the dangers inherent in using meat and some meal of United Kingdom origin in animal foodstuffs; and if he will indicate when such steps were taken.

  Mr. Maclean
  Comprehensive information about bovine spongiform encephalopathy, including the probable role of meat and bone-meal in its development, has been provided to the EC Commission and member states on a regular basis since the disease was first identified. Similar information has been passed to the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) for dissemination to third countries. Inquiries received from individual countries are answered as they arise.

ENERGY

  Onshore Oil Production
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many barrels of oil are produced each day from onshore drilling sites in the United Kingdom; how many such sites are currently in operation; and if he will make a statement of his proposals for licensing future onshore oil production.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Production from onshore oilfields averaged 14,700 barrels per day in 1989. This level is
  91
  expected to increase substantially when production from the Wytch Farm field expands later this year. Twelve fields and a number of small sites in the east midlands are currently in production. Companies are free to apply to my Department for licences to produce oil from onshore discoveries at any time. No such applications are under consideration at present. Existing licensees require consent for their detailed plans to develop oil discoveries. My right hon. Friend has two applications for such consent currently under consideration.

  NATO Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the names and dates of post-1980 NATO exercises in which the United Kingdom national oil board and the eastern branch of the NATO wartime oil organisation have participated.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 8 November 1989,Official Report, column 652; it would not be appropriate for me to supply the detail requested.

  Marketing Advisers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many companies submitted tenders for the contract to be special marketing and public relations adviser to him won by Lowe Bell.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Three firms were invited to submit tenders in respect of the appointment of a special marketing and PR adviser for the Secretary of State. One of the firms declined to participate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many companies submitted tenders for the marketing and public relations advisers contract with his Department and the electricity supply industry won by Dewe Rogerson.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Three firms were invited to submit tenders in respect of the joint appointment of a marketing and PR adviser for the Government and the electricity supply industry. One of the firms declined to participate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library a copy of his contract with Lowe Bell Communications as special marketing and promotional advisers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Detailed information concerning contracts with individual advisers is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the target objectives laid down in his contract with Lowe Bell Communications as special marketing and promotional advisers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Lowe Bell Communications will provide independent marketing and public relations advice to the Department of Energy as required in respect of electricity privatisation. Detailed information concerning contracts with individual advisers is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the target objectives set down in the contract with Dewe Rogerson as marketing and public relations advisers to his Department and the electricity supply industry.
  92
  Mr. Wakeham
  The Secretary of State for Energy and the electricity supply industry (ESI) have jointly appointed Dewe Rogerson to be marketing and public relations advisers for the privatisation of the ESI in England and Wales. Dewe Rogerson will be responsible for the development of the marketing strategy and will undertake specific marketing and public relations tasks, as required. Detailed information concerning contracts with individual advisers is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the distinct roles of Lowe Bell and Dewe Rogerson in providing him with special marketing and marketing advice, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Dewe Rogerson as a joint appointment will provide marketing and public relations advice to both the Department of Energy and the electricity supply industry. Lowe Bell Communications will provide marketing and public relations advice solely to the Department of Energy.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will place in the Library a copy of the contract for marketing and public relations advice between Dewe Rogerson and his Department and the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Detailed information concerning contracts with individual advisers is commercially confidential.

  Electricity Supply industry
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are his current proposals for employee shareholdings in the electricity supply industry in terms of individual employees and as a percentage of total shares respectively.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No decision on the type of offers that will be made to employees has yet been taken.

  Electricity Boards (Assets)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the value of the assets of the Central Electricity Generating Board, the 12 area boards and each of the Scottish electricity boards.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Asset values are contained in the relevant annual report and accounts, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Information about the Scottish electricity boards is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Peak Demands (Cold Weather)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's current estimate of severe weather peak demand for electricity, this year and for each succeeding year up to 1995.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In the financial year 1988–89 average cold spell system maximum demand for electricity in England and Wales was 48·1 GW. The Department has no estimate of this number for future years.
  93
  (2) what was the total of electricity imported from France in 1989 in (a) kilowatt hours and (b) 1986 values.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Provisional data for the period December 1988 to November 1989, as published in the overseas trade statistics, show that electricity imports from France amounted to 14,045 GW hours. This equates to £346 million at 1986 prices. The figure at 1986 prices has been derived by applying the unit value of electricity imports in 1986 to the volume imported in 1989. There were no exports of electricity recorded for this period.

  Energy Exports and Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what were the total exports of coal, natural gas and oil in December 1989 expressed in tonnes and at 1985 values;

  (2) what were the total imports of coal, natural gas and oil in December 1989 expressed in tonnes and at 1985 values.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply given on 1 February 1990,Official Report, col 264.

  Cormorant Alpha
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) of what material the leg of the Cormorant Alpha platform, damaged by explosion on 22 April 1989, was made; what was the extent of the damage to the leg; whether there was any water seepage into the leg at any point; whether the structural integrity of the platform, or of the leg where the explosion occurred, has been affected; what internal and external inspections have been carried out on the damaged leg; what frequency of inspection of the damaged leg his Department will require in the future; what repairs have been carried out to the leg; and whether repairs so far carried out have been approved by the appropriate certifying authority;

  (2) what advice he has given to operators of offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf consequent on the explosion on the Cormorant Alpha platform on 22 April 1989; and if he will publish the results of his Department's investigation into the causes of the explosion;

  (3) where the explosion on the Cormorant Alpha production platform on 22 April 1989 occurred; what work was being carried out at the time; and what was the cause of the explosion;

  (4) whether he intends to pass a copy of his Department's report on the explosion on the Cormorant Alpha platform on 22 April 1989 to the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen for consideration of prosecution.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The explosion occurred in one of the legs of the platform during the installation of an additional emergency shutdown valve on the gas riser. A small component failed allowing a safety plug in the gas riser to be ejected causing a gas leak. the valve and the riser were closed, isolating the riser, but residual gas in the leg found an unidentified ignition source. All personnel had been evacuated to a safe area and precautionary down-manning of the installation had commenced before the ignition occurred.

  The legs of the Cormorant Alpha platform are constructed of concrete. There was no primary structural damage as a result of the explosion and the structural integrity of the platform had not been affected. Repairs to
  94
  some minor internal damage to trunking and hatch covers have been carried out and have been approved by the certifying authority. Regular surveys of the platform will be undertaken by the certifying authority in accordance with statutory requirements. Although water from the deluge system entered the leg, there was no abnormal sea water seepage following the incident.

  In October 1989 my safety directorate issued a discussion document on protection against fire and explosion on offshore installations.

  A report on my Department's investigation into the incident has been passed to the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen. As the report is an integral part of the procurator fiscal's consideration of whether any prosecution should be initiated, it would not be appropriate to release it.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the Cormorant field will begin production of oil and gas; and what has been the total loss of production from the Cormorant field caused by(a) the shutdown of the platform and (b) the shutdown of the pipeline system running through the Cormorant Alpha platform.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Production from the North Cormorant platform restarted late in May 1989. Production from the Cormorant Alpha platform is expected to restart later this month. It is not expected that there will be any long-term loss of production, but some 0·6 million tonnes of Cormorant production was deferred while the pipeline system was shut down and a further 1·1 million tonnes has been deferred while the Cormorant Alpha platform only has been shut down.

  Ninian Central
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what advice he has given following the leak of gas, which occurred on the Ninian Central platform in the week ended 8 October 1988, to other operators on the United Kingdom continental shelf; if he will publish his Department's report into the incident; and if he intends to pass a copy of his Department's report to the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen for consideration of prosecution;

  (2) what was the cause of the gas leak which occurred on the Ninian Central platform in the week ended 8 October 1988; what remedial steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence; and what was the total cost of lost production of oil and gas as a result of the shutdown of the platform.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The incident was caused by undue manual force being applied when attempting to open a small valve. This resulted in the fracture of a drain line on a separator vessel, causing a high pressure discharge of condensate through a 0·75in hole. All similar drain connections on the operator's platforms were inspected and found to be in order.

  My safety directorate issued a safety notice (5/89) on 21 February 1989. This made it clear that owners of installations should take steps, including safety assessments and hazard and operability studies where appropriate, to ensure that their systems and procedures are adequate to prevent gas releases from pressurised systems and to provide effective fire and gas detection and water deluge systems.
  95
  It is not proposed to publish the report by my inspectors into this incident. Careful consideration was given to whether there were grounds for prosecution, but it was concluded that such action was not appropriate.

  The total value of lost and deferred production was some £7 million in prices of the day, of which some 40 per cent. represented deferred rather than lost production.

  Fulmar FSU
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what advice he has given to offshore operators on the United Kingdom continental shelf consequent on the incident in the week of 25 December 1988, when the Fulmar FSU broke loose from its moorings; if he will publish a copy of his Department's report into the incident; and if he intends to pass a copy of his Department's report to the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen for consideration of prosecution;

  (2) what was the cause of the Fulmar FSU breaking loose from its moorings in the week of 25 December 1988; what was the loss of production caused by this incident; and what technical changes have been advised or required of operators of this and similar operations, to prevent a recurrence and earlier warning of serious incidents.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Fulmar FSU broke loose from its single anchor leg mooring buoy when critical latch components at the base of the buoy fractured during severe weather conditions. The buoy was of a design unique on the UKCS and any lessons learnt are largely specific to it. As a result of requirements by my safety directorate, the operator has made a number of design modifications and has installed a new position reference system and a propulsion facility to enable the direction of drift to be controlled. In addition, my safety directorate laid down specific technical requirements prior to the reinstatement of the Fulmar FSU. Similar advice has been given to one other operator planning to procure a floating storage unit.

  My Department's investigation report will be sent to the procurator fiscal in Aberdeen and will form an integral part of his consideration of whether any prosecution should be initiated. It would not therefore be appropriate for it to be published.

  It is not expected that there will be any long-term loss of production as a result of this incident, but production of some 2·25 million tonnes of oil was deferred until later in the field life.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the loss of oil spillage as a result of the Fulmar FSU breaking loose from its moorings in the week of 25 December 1988; what steps were taken to control the resulting oil slick; what arrangements were in place at the locus to deal with oil spills; what was the maximum spillage that existing facilities could contain; and what instructions or guidance he has given to operators as a result of this incident to improve the oil spill response capacity on the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Approximately 1,300 tons of oil were spilled following the incident. The oil slick was closely monitored by air and sea surveillance. No action was taken when it was found to have dispersed naturally.

  The standby vessel for the Fulmar FSU held a maximum of 5 tons of dispersant capable of dealing with 100 tons of oil.
  96
  Primary responsibility for responding to oil spills from offshore installations rests with the operators who are required to have oil spill contingency plans. The industry has a counter-pollution capability on a collective basis, and the resources of the marine pollution control unit of the Department of Transport are available for dealing with oil spills requiring greater resources than those provided by the industry. No additional guidance as a result of Fulmar FSU incident is considered necessary.

  Offshore Installations (Corrosion)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what research his Department has undertaken into the problem of corrosion under insulation, in offshore installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf; what specific instructions or guidance he has given to operators on this matter; and what assessment he has made of the loss of production as a result of corrosion under insulation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My safety directorate has appointed an independent consultant to carry out a survey to determine the procedures and systems in use for monitoring and controlling corrosion and erosion of pipework and plant, including corrosion under insulation, on offshore installations. The aim in sponsoring this work is to issue, if necessary, improved guidance to the industry.

  My Department is also sponsoring the development of a system to detect corrosion of process pipework without removing the insulation cladding. A company has demonstrated the feasibility of the concept and is now proceeding with prototype manufacture prior to experimental evaluation.

  My Department is not aware of any loss of production due to corrosion under insulation on offshore installations.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the proportion by which electricity prices will have risen for heavy industrial users between the years 1986–87 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Baldry
  Prices for all industrial users have risen by 12 per cent. in current terms, equivalent to a reduction of 5 per cent. in real terms, between 1986–87 and the first two quarters of 1989–90. Figures beyond the second quarter of 1989–90 are not yet available.

  Nuclear Levy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the electricity consumers in England and Wales who will be exempt from the nuclear levy.

  Mr. Baldry
  Electricity customers benefit from the security of supply which diversity helps ensure, and therefore should contribute to the costs of achieving that security. The cost of nuclear power is already included in electricity prices. This will not change after privatisation. The fossil fuel levy will simply indentify this cost.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has carried out on the level and scope of the nuclear levy.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy earlier today.
  97
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the maximum number of supply interruptions allowed in one year of a supply contract for electricity generated from nuclear sources for it to count towards the non-fossil fuel quota.

  Mr. Baldry
  Arrangements which allow a generator at his discretion to interrupt the supply, do not provide security of supply. Such arrangements will therefore not be capable of contributing towards the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the supply contract for nuclear electricity from France will count towards the non-fossil fuel quota.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 29 January at column 86.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the timetable for publication of the study commissioned by the board in 1988 into electro-magnetic fields emanating from power lines and the incidence of adult leukaemia;

  (2) if during his next meeting with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, he will discuss the publication date of the report it commissioned into the link between electro-magnetic fields emanating from power lines and adult leukaemia.

  Mr. Baldry
  The national grid division of the CEGB is managing this work on behalf of the electricity supply industry. It is supporting investigations by independent researchers of good standing and it is expected that the results will be published in due course in scientific journals following the normal peer review process.

TRANSPORT

  Tachographs
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure the enforcement of tachograph regulations for heavy lorries; how many tachograph inspectors have been appointed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Checks on HGV drivers' tachograph records are conducted by the Department's traffic examiners at the roadside and in follow-up investigations at operating bases. Charts are also checked in the 11 traffic area offices using computerised analysis equipment.

  Over 1·4 million tachograph charts will be checked in 1990–91. Twenty-five traffic examiners were recruited in 1989, and a further recruitment drive is planned for 1990 to bring the grade up to its full strength of 235 posts.

  London Underground
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold discussions with London Underground Limited on options for a special extra line service from Embankment to Charing Cross stations following any eastward extensions of the Jubilee line route.
  98
  Mr. Portillo
  The existing Northern line and Bakerloo line services from Embankment to Charing Cross stations will be unaffected by the proposed extension of the Jubilee line, and it is proposed that Jubilee line passengers will benefit from new interchanges at Westminster, Waterloo, London Bridge and points east of there.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to implement the major upgrading programme of London's Underground, proposed in the central London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  Action to implement the £1·5 billion modernisation programme is in hand on both the Underground and Network SouthEast. Examples on the Underground include the modernisation of the Central line at a cost of about £720 million; the development of similar plans for the Northern line; improvements to increase the capacity of other lines; and works to increase the capacity of some of the most heavily congested stations.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to how many London Underground stations have been closed for all or part of the day to staff shortages so far this year.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Underground will close a station when insufficient numbers of staff are present to permit safe operation.

  There were 153 station closures during the first four weeks of this year. Sixty-eight of these occurred during the first week, when additional staff had to be recruited to carry out the hourly fire inspections required by the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority.

  Airline Users Committee
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has met the chairman of the Airline Users Committee to discuss its annual report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman and director general of the committee on 26 September 1989 before publication of the report. I shall be meeting the committee again on 14 February to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The date of my next formal meeting with Mr. Newton has not yet been fixed.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of London Regional Transport; and whether matters of safety were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend and I frequently meet the chairman of London Regional Transport. The most recent meeting was on 5 February when the chairman and I discussed a wide range of matters including safely.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport if he will estimate the total net saving to London Regional Transport due to competitive tendering.
  99
  Mr. Portillo
  London Regional Transport estimates that it has secured cost savings of some 15 per cent. as a result of letting bus routes by competitive tender. It is not possible to quantify the impact of competitive tendering on other areas of its business.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much grant aid he is providing for London Regional Transport to implement the findings of the Fennell report during 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Underground estimates that by the year 2000 it will have spent more than £1 billion on improving safety. The improvements go much wider than the recommendations of the Fennell report. Government grant to London Regional Transport is not attributed to specific projects or activities, but the successive increases in grant announced in the last two Autumn Statements will be more than sufficient to enable London Underground to secure its planned improvements in safety standards. Grant is planed to rise by 115 per cent. over the public expenditure survey period.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to introduce to reduce the number of road accidents involving children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Cutting child casualties is one of our top road safety priorities. Since September we have introduced compulsory rear seat restraints, launched "conspicuity" and "safe route to school" campaigns, and are developing other safety measures which will benefit particularly child pedestrians and cyclists. I am looking to local authorities in their road safety plans to foster local initiatives with schools, hospitals, parents and all concerned with the safety and well-being of children.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to the extent to which fares on Network SouthEast are presently subsidised and on the effect on Network SouthEast of the phasing out of the public service obligation grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Network SouthEast is planning to invest some £1·2 billion over the next three years. The level of investment in British Rail was recently described by its chairman as"about the maximum rate we can physically manage".

  According to BR's plans Network South East's investment can be achieved through modest real fares increases while subsidy falls from 13 per cent. to zero.

  M25
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work will commence on the M25 spur to the A12 at Chelmsford.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our programme provides for award of the design commission later this year and announcement of a preferred route in 1993. Progress after that will depend on the outcome of the statutory procedures, including a public inquiry if one proves necessary.

  British Rail
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss investment for Network SouthEast.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Rail on 17 January to discuss a range of subjects.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by which date he intends British Rail to be ready for privatisation.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have taken no decisions yet on British Rail privatisation.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he proposes to discuss.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) earlier today.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on investment in the line between Waterloo and Southampton.

  Mr. Portillo
  Since 1988 the main line from Southampton to Waterloo has been served by a fleet of modern class 422 Wessex electrics which cost £46 million. Network SouthEast has carried out numerous station improvements in the Southampton area often with funding contributions from local authorities. Eastleigh station was recently rebuilt at a cost of £1·8 million. The £16 million Portsmouth-Southampton electrification scheme is due for completion in May.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the Government grant of money to the Sheffield-St. Pancras midland line for each successive year since 1979.

  Mr. Portillo
  The public service obligation grant is not based on an allocation between routes, and it is not possible to specify the sums paid in respect of services on the Sheffield-St. Pancras midland line. No grant has been paid for Inter-City services on any line since April 1988.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to ensure better co-ordination of European air traffic control systems.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government have launched various initiatives through Eurocontrol and the European civil aviation conference to promote integration of European air traffic control systems. I am glad that good progress is being made.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on proposals by the Civil Aviation Authority to increase the number of air traffic controller cadets in 1991.
  101
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority is embarking on an enhanced programme for training air traffic controller cadets and is aiming to increase its recruitment from 80 in 1988 to 240 by 1991.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much the Civil Aviation Authority's new en route air traffic control centre will increase air space capacity.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The new en route centre is expected to increase airspace capacity, in the en route sectors over England and Wales by at least 40 per cent. when operational in 1996.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much will be invested by the Civil Aviation Authority to improve air traffic control over the next three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority plans to spend £260 million over the next three years on civil air traffic control-related projects.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what length of training is now required before full qualification as an air traffic controller and what was the period of training undertaken before qualification in 1980.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A simple comparison between the length of training now and the length of training in 1980 is not possible. I am therefore asking the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to reply to the hon. Member with detailed information.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of persons out of the last intake commencing training as air traffic controllers, whose training has now been completed successfully completed their training course and qualified as air traffic controllers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The last intake which completed its training to qualify as air traffic controllers had 13 successful members out of 18 who commenced; of the five who were unsuccessful, three had their training terminated due to failure and two resigned.

  Freight Transport
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase freight transport by the waterways to ease the demand by heavy goods transport on the roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is for customers to choose the mode of transport best suited to their needs. The role of Government is to ensure that fair conditions of competition exist between the modes.

  M1, Leicestershire
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent measures he has taken to improve the flow of traffic on the M1 in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Atkins
  A number of measures are being prepared, some for imminent implementation. Junction improvements and widening of the M1 in Leicestershire were 102
  announced in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" in May 1989. In the meantime, improvements to assist traffic flow at junctions 21 and 24 are planned for this year.

  Railway Investment
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange to meet his West German counterpart to discuss railway investment.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I am looking forward to seeing all my European colleagues at the next EC Transport Council meeting on 29 March.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on plans for the high-speed railway link to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail is continuing negotiations with its joint venture partner on a detailed agreement. The aim remains to introduce a Bill for the project later in the year.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has discussed with British Rail its proposed levels of freight and passenger service between the north-west and the prospective Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  Ministers had the chance to see a presentation from British Rail very shortly before it published its proposals for passenger and freight services in its section 40 plan on 14 December.

  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further consideration he has given to the proposals of the Ove Arup partnership with regard to the route of the Channel tunnel rail links; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 4 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter),Official Report, at columns 87–88.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest plans by British Rail for the Channel tunnel line through London.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding British Rail's plans for a high-speed rail link to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current arrangements for the Euro tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Channel tunnel is a private sector project, to be constructed and operated in accordance with the Channel fixed link treaty, the Channel Tunnel Act and the concession agreement between the United Kingdom and French Governments and Eurotunnel.

  Eurotunnel and TML, the construction group, have recently reaffirmed 15 June 1993 as the target date for completion. British Rail announced in December its plans for international rail services for the United Kingdom.

  Bus Services (Privatisation)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of privatisation of the bus services.

  Mr. Portillo
  Privatisation of all 72 subsidiaries of the National Bus Company was completed in April 1988. Eight local authority bus companies have also been privatised and other sales are in the pipeline. Privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group is to begin shortly. I intend that privatisation should also occur in London.

  Traffic, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters he has received in response to stage two of the east London assessment study.

  Mr. Atkins
  About 900.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to the "Traffic in London" discussion paper.

  Mr. Atkins
  As of today, 59. The consultation period expires on 28 February.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has commissioned into the effects of traffic restrictions and measures in London.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department studies a wide range of measures aimed at easing congestion in London, and these have included a preliminary study of the possible implications of introducing electronic road pricing in London.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has so far received to the London assessment studies consultation.

  Mr. Atkins
  About 3,000.

  Roads
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes have been completed since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since April 1979, 282 trunk road schemes, totalling 970 miles and including 107 bypasses and relief roads, have been completed.

  Marchioness
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a decision as to whether a public inquiry will be held to investigate the Marchioness collision.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide whether to order a formal investigation into the Marchioness accident when he has received the report from the chief inspector of marine accidents.

  Road Pricing
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to publish proposals on road pricing; and if he will make a statement.
  104
  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has no proposals to introduce road pricing at present.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to change the regulations governing the qualifications of people supervising learner drivers.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on 20 December 1989,Official Report, Vol. 164. c. 278.

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss matters within his responsibilities; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has regular contacts with ACPO and with individual chief constables. These discussions cover all aspects of road, vehicle and driver safety. I met the chairman of the ACPO traffic committee on 8 November for a general discussion on all these matters.

  Road Repairs
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the value of penalties for late completion of repair works to trunk roads received in the last year.

  Mr. Atkins
  Penalty charges are payable under lane rental contracts for late completion of major maintenance works. In 1988–89 there were 12 lane rental contracts and, while no penalty charges were incurred by contractors, an estimated £6 million in delay costs to road users were saved when compared with doing the work under conventional contracts, which would have taken longer.

  Road Casualties
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to achieve the projected reduction in road casualties by a third by the year 2000.

  Mr. Atkins
  The steps that we are taking to reduce road casualties are outlined in the reply to the hon. Member on 9 January columns 584–85. These are set out more fully in the second annual progress report "Road Casualty Reduction", a copy of which is in the Library.

  MV Marine
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take regarding the loss of the MV Marine.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  As the Marine is a Bahamian registered vessel, the investigation into its loss is being conducted by the Bahamian authorities. However, as all the six crewmen were British, the marine accident investigation branch has asked for, and been promised, a copy of the Bahamian administration's report.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about progress on the proposal to build a second Severn crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on 17 January.Official Report, column 241.

  Railfreight
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many container ship routes in Britain operated by Railfreight use non-British ships and crews; and if he will make a statement on the usage of local labour on such routes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Railfreight does not operate any ships. I understand that it buys container space from operators on three routes from United Kingdom ports, all using non-British vessels and crew. The routes are: Ellesmere Port to Belfast, Holyhead to Dublin, and Harwich to Zeebrugge. The choice of operators is a matter for British Rail's commercial judgment. Crewing decisions are matters for the operators, subject to any requirements of the flag state or restrictions in charter agreements.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to encourage the growth of regional airports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government encourage the maximum use of regional airports, both to meet local demand and to relieve pressure on the London airports.

  Over the past decade more than £300 million of capital expenditure has been facilitated, through special borrowing approvals for the development of local authority airports. I announced on 9 January that special borrowing approvals totalling £59 million will be available for 1990–91, facilitating investment which the airports concerned estimate could total some £117 million in that year.

  We also very much welcome the contribution to the development of local authority airports which the private sector already makes through direct investment and joint venture schemes; and we look to the airports concerned and their local authority owners to take full account of the opportunities for private sector involvement as they formulate their plans for further expansion.

  We are continuing to pursue liberalisation policies, both in the European Community and in bilateral negotiations, which increase further the scope for services from our regional airports.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the trust ports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We believe that there are advantages in the main commercial trust ports being transformed into companies. So far we have not been able to make room ourselves for the legislation needed to bring about such a106
  change. Meanwhile the Clyde and the Tees and Hartlepool port authorities have promoted their own private measures.

  British Midland
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Midland Airways Ltd; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend met the chairman of British Midland Airways Ltd. on 29 January to discuss developments in the airline industry.

  A1/M1, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects the proposed A1/M1 link started in south Yorkshire to be completed.

  Mr. Atkins
  The proposals for an A1/M1 link road in south Yorkshire concern county roads which are the responsibility of the local highway authorities, Barnsley and Doncaster metropolitan district councils. Decisions on timing are for the councils, but I understand that construction work has not yet commenced.

  Bypasses
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses, for which his Department was responsible, were opened last year.

  Mr. Atkins
  Twelve bypasses were opened to traffic on trunk roads in 1989. Many other schemes, although not designated as bypasses, also took through traffic out of towns and villages.

  Lockerbie Air Disaster
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received seeking a public inquiry into the Lockerbie air disaster.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Since 15 December, when the Lord Advocate announced his decision to set preparations in hand for a fatal accident inquiry, representations have been made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and representatives of relatives of those who died in the disaster.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what environmental protection measures his Department takes when constructing new roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 2 February. My right hon. Friend will make a further statement on the environmental treatment of trunk road schemes when the roads report is published shortly.

  Roads, Essex
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial allocation has been made for road building in Essex over the next five years; and what schemes have priority.
  107
  Mr. Atkins
  Detailed Government funding is for only one year at a time and depends on completion of statutory and other procedures, although there are forward programmes. The Department's expanded trunk road and motorway programme includes a number of important schemes in Essex, notably widening of M25 and the new motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford. The major A127 Rayleigh Weir junction improvement is already under way.

  For local roads Essex county council will in 1990–91 receive transport supplementary grant of £6·686 million towards capital expenditure, including work on the A120 Dovercourt bypass stage 2 and the A414 Caves lane improvement. This represents an increase of over 30 per cent. compared with 1989–90.

  Motorway Lane Closures
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate how many lane closure days have been saved by motorway lane rental contracts.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since their introduction in 1984 lane rental contracts on motorways in England have saved over 2,000 days of lane closures compared with estimates of the length of time the works would have taken under conventional contracts.

  Luton-Dunstable Line
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any further information from British Rail as to what its decision will be concerning the proposed reopening of the Luton to Dunstable line for passenger traffic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The British Railways Board is still appraising several options. It tells me that a decision will be taken soon.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much he expects his Department to spend on road construction in 1990–91.

  Mr. Atkins
  Spending on road construction in 1990–91 will total £1,282 million. This is a 40 per cent. increase in real terms on the original provision for 1989–90.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce the number of alcohol-related traffic accidents.

  Mr. Atkins
  The most effective way of reducing such accidents is the increasing recognition by drivers that society will not tolerate drinking and driving. I welcome this change in attitude, reflected in the reduced number of accidents linked with alcohol misuse. But it is still a major cause of death and injury on the road. We shall continue through publicity, through working with the drinks industry to encourage responsible behaviour, through enforcement action by the police and through effective application of the law to seek to cut this waste of human lives.
  108
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the latest available annual figure for road deaths to(a) children and (b) adults killed near pedestrian crossings.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1988, a total of 281 adults and 28 children were killed in road accidents that took place within 50m of a zebra or pelican crossing and, in particular, 222 of the adults and 24 of the children were pedestrians at the time of the accidents.

  Of the pedestrian fatalities, 41 per cent. of the adults and 50 per cent. of the children were in the carriageway using the pedestrian crossing. Most of the remainder were in the carriageway, either within the zig-zag lines on the approach and exit to the crossing, or at some other point within a distance of 50m of the crossing. One child and six adults were on the footpath at the time of the accident.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans London Regional Transport has to extend the docklands light railway.

  Mr. Portillo
  Work is under way on extending the docklands light railway to Bank in the City of London and through the royal docks area to Beckton. London Regional Transport is developing a case for a southern extension under the River Thames to Greenwich and Lewisham.

  Inner Cities (Access)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to improve access to inner-city areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  Assisting local road schemes through transport supplementary grant; constructing trunk roads where appropriate; providing grant under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 for public transport; and consolidating the regeneration of London's docklands with the approval of the Jubilee line extension.

  A6 Bypass
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to start on the A6 bypass of Rushden and Higham Ferrers.

  Mr. Atkins
  Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, work could start in the summer of 1992 with completion towards the end of 1993.

  RAF Aldergrove
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his reply of 30 January,Official Report, column 31, what type of radar there is at RAF Aldergrove; and whether it detects meteorite activity or tracks attributable to associated ionisation effects on Saturday 11 November 1989, at or around 2028 GMT, particularly on or near a position three nautical miles east of Kirkistown and at around 11,000 ft.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is no radar at RAF Aldergrove. There is a National Air Traffic Service Plessey Watchman EN 4000 radar at Belfast (Aldergrove) airport. It did not detect any unusual activity on 11 November 1989.

  Irish Lights
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how Irish Lights is funded; what contribution is made to it by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; and whether fishing boats from the Republic of Ireland are required to pay similar levies to Irish Lights to those paid by Northern Irish vessels.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Commissioners of Irish Lights are funded from the general lighthouse fund established by section 1 of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act 1898. The fund's principal income is from light dues levied on shipping using ports in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Following an agreement entered into in 1985, the Irish Government make an annual contribution into the fund which, when added to light dues collected in the Republic, now meets half the costs of the Commissioners deemed to be incurred in the Republic. The most recent such contribution was in January 1990 in the sum of £2 million Irish pounds. The United Kingdom Government make no contribution to the fund. Light dues in the Republic are determined by the Irish Minister of the Marine and the Irish Government have made no decision to extend light dues to fishing vessels in the Republic. Such vessels are liable to the United Kingdom dues if they call at a United Kingdom port.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of company cars sold in the United Kingdom in 1989 were made in the United Kingdom

  Annual income distribution of main drivers of cars by engine size: 1985–86

  percentage

  Income

  Engine size in litres

  (£ per annum)

  < 1

  1–1·5

  1·5–2

  2–2·5

  2·5–3

  > 3

  Total

  0–4,999

  50

  41

  28

  23

  26

  20

  36

  5,0009–,999

  35

  39

  36

  31

  28

  28

  37

  10,000–14,999

  13

  17

  23

  22

  23

  27

  19

  15,000–19,999

  2

  3

  8

  11

  5

  8

  5

  20,000–24,999

  1

  1

  3

  5

  7

  4

  2

  25,000+

  1

  0

  2

  8

  11

  13

  2

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Source: National Travel Survey 1985–86.

  Regional distribution of cars by engine size: December 1988

  percentage

  Engine size in litres

  Region

  < 1

  1–1·5

  1·5–2

  2–2·5

  2·5–3

  > 3

  South West

  9

  10

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Northern

  5

  5

  4

  4

  3

  3

  Yorks and Humberside

  9

  8

  8

  7

  6

  6

  South East

  32

  33

  36

  38

  45

  45

  East Midlands

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  West Midlands

  11

  10

  10

  9

  9

  10

  East Anglia

  4

  4

  4

  5

  4

  4

  NorthWest

  12

  11

  10

  9

  9

  8

  England

  88

  87

  88

  88

  92

  92

  Scotland

  7

  8

  7

  7

  5

  5

  Wales

  5

  5

  5

  5

  4

  4

  Great Britain

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  Source: DVLC licensing statistics December1988.
  110
  Mr. Atkins
  Of the cars registered for the first time in a company name in 1989, 51 per cent. were produced in Great Britain.

  The figures for Northern Ireland are not available. Therefore, figures given are for Great Britain only.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much is raised in vehicle excise duty from owners of cars which have(a) a 1 litre engine, (b) a 1·5 litre engine, (c) a 2 litre engine, (d) a 2·5 litre engine and (e) a 3 litre engine; and what is the income and regional distribution of the car owners in each of these cases.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's estimates of vehicle excise duty revenue from cars of different engine sizes are as follows:

  Estimated vehicle excise duty revenue from cars 1988–89

  Estimated vehicle excise duty revenue £ million

  Engine size in litres

  <1

  245

  1 to 1·5

  795

  1·5 to 2

  765

  2 to 2·5

  80

  2·5 to 3

  50

  >3

  35

  TOTAL

  1,970

  Source: DVLC licensing statistics 1988–89.

  The following tables give estimated annual income of main drivers and regional distributions for cars with these engine sizes.
  111
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much petrol prices would have to be raised for a revenue neutral budget if vehicle excise duty was(a) abolished, (b) frozen at its current rate, (c) abolsihed for cares of less than 1·5 litre engines and (d) abolished for cares of less than 2 litre engines; and what would be the impact on the retail prices index in each of these cases.

  Mr. Atkins
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the growth of air traffic throughout the United Kingdom over the next five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's most recent air traffic forecasts, published in December 1988, predict that in 1995 passenger movements at United Kingdom airports will be in the range of 120 million to just under 140 million. In 1988, the first year for which complete statistics are available the corresponding total was 93·2 million.

  Whaley Bridge Bypass
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the reports by Allol and Lomax, consulting engineers, into the performance of the consulting engineers employed on the Chapel-en-le-Firth-Whaley Bridge bypass; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Atkins
  The report is not yet completed. Phase (iii) of the geotechnical investigation is in hand and phase (iv) may be necessary, depending on the outcome of phase (iii). When the full report is available, consideration will be given to placing a copy in the Library.

  Chiltern Lines (Signals)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail about new signalling systems on the Chiltern lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  A scheme to resignal the Chiltern lines forms part of a package of measures to modernise the infrastructure on the route and is one of the prototype schemes for automatic train protection. The railway inspectorate will be discussing the details with British Rail at the appropriate time.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on(a) the percentage of signals (i) nationally and (ii) on the Chiltern lines which are paraffin-lit and (b) that are currently out of action.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no such information. If the hon. Lady has a particular concern about the use of paraffin-lit signals she might wish to write to me.

  Mersey Tunnel
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received Merseytravel's submission for Government assistance in relation to the Mersey tunnel's debt issue; when Merseytravel is required to settle its budget and declare its levy; and if he will make a statement.
  112
  Mr. Atkins
  We received Merseytravel's submission for Government assistance on 28 November 1989, some two months later than expected. We have been considering it carefully. Merseytravel is due to set its budget on 14 February, and we hope to respond by then.

  Escalator (St. John's Wood)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his reply on escalators at St. John's Wood to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton,Official Report, 29 January, column 55, what explanation he received from London Underground as to why that escalator was still out of service on 7 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is a matter within London Underground's management responsibility, for which it should answer. However, the information given in my previous reply was given in good faith. I understand the repair is taking longer than expected, and that the work should now be complete by 26 February.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the quality of service performance indicators that have been introduced into the Vehicle Inspectorate since its establishment as an agency.

  Mr. Atkins
  The main quality of service indicators that have been introduced by the Vehicle Inspectorate executive agency are:

  i. The number of exemption certificates issued annually (an exemption certificate is issued if the Vehicle Inspectorate is unable to test a vehicle by the due test date).

  ii.The time taken for dealing with requests for MOT-test documentation.

  iii.The extent to which ministerial targets for defined enforcement activities have been met (eg inspections of heavy goods and public service vehicle operators' maintenance facilities; and inspections of MOT testing stations).

  iv. The time taken between the receipt of an operator's application for a test appointment and the grant of an appointment.

  v. The proportion of tests undertaken at the times and locations requested by operators.

  Indicators (i) to (iii) along with other, secondary, measures are published in the inspectorate's 1989–90 business plan and 1988–89 annual report and accounts, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Indicators (iv) and (v) form part of the inspectorate's internal service quality monitoring system.

  Historic Wrecks
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing how many historic wrecks are protected by designation orders under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973(a) in total and (b) in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Designation orders have been made under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 in respect of 34 wreck sites of historical importance. The numbers of orders made in each of the past 10 years is as follows:

  Orders

  1980

  3

  1981

  2

  1982

  2

  113

  Orders

  1983

  1

  1984

  2

  1985

  1

  1986

  1

  1987

  —

  1988

  1

  1989

  2

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sums he has made available to marine archaeological work in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1986 the Department contracted the university of St. Andrews to provide a team to inspect both sites proposed for designation under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 because of their archaeological or historical importance and sites already so designated. Under this contract the Department has incurred expenditure as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  75,684

  1987–88

  42,884

  1988–89

  52,242

  1989–90

  73,700

  Lancashire-London Transport Links
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve travel between Lancashire and London over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 8 February 1990]: There is already a good rail service between Lancashire and London, which will benefit further from British Rail's substantial programme of investment.

  The trunk road network is undergoing a major programme of expansion, as announced in "Roads for Prosperity"; within this programme are a number of schemes which will benefit links between Lancashire and London, in particular the completion of the M40 and the Birmingham orbital, and widening schemes for the M1 between junctions 6A and 19, the M6 between junctions 1 and 4A, junctions 11 and 21A and junctions 30 and 32. The widening of all present dual three lanes sections of the M25 to dual four lanes will also facilitate travel. The cost of the widening schemes alone will amount to some £1·8 billion.

  There is also a number of major schemes proposed linking Greater Manchester and other urban areas to the national motorway network. These include the Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, the Manchester outer ring road, the Blackburn southern bypass and the Preston southern and western bypass.

  The Government are also considering the timing and scope of the possibility of competitive tendering in the private sector to provide a new route in the Birmingham to Manchester corridor.

  The region's airports are controlled by the local airport authorities and are not therefore under the direct responsibility of the Department. It is the policy of the Department to encourage LAAs to develop services to meet fully the demand which exists.

  Computer Security
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has, and is taking to improve the security of its computer systems.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: For unclassified but sensitive systems Departments are expected to follow CCTA guidance covering all aspects of IT security and the application of this has been tightened recently. CCTA advice is kept under continuous review and is based on analysis of security risks and requirements using structured methods such as CCTA's risk analysis and management methodology (CRAMM) which has also been made commercially available.

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the levels of car ownership by size of settlement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: In 1985–86 the average number of cars per household and the percentage of households with at least two cars was as follows:

  Type of area

  Population (thousands)

  Average number of cars per household

  Percentage of household with at least two cars

  Urban

  >250

  0·67

  12

  Urban

  100–250

  0·78

  15

  Urban

  50–100

  0·75

  13

  Urban

  25–50

  0·76

  13

  Urban

  3–25

  0·86

  16

  Rural

  1·06

  27

  Great Britain

  0·78

  15

  Source: National Travel Survey

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the rates of change in car ownership by size of settlement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The increase in the number of cars per household between 1975–76 and 1985–86 was as follows:

  Type of area

  Population (thousands)

  Average number of cars per household

  Per cent, increase

  1975–76

  1985–86

  1975–76 to 1985–86

  Urban

  >250

  0·53

  0·67

  27

  Urban

  100–250

  0·58

  0·78

  34

  Urban

  50·100

  0·58

  0·75

  30

  Urban

  25–50

  0·68

  0·76

  11

  Urban

  3–25

  0·70

  0·86

  23

  Rural

  —

  0·83

  1–06

  28

  Great Britain

  0·63

  0·78

  23

  Source: National Travel Survey.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has done into levels of car ownership by income; and what are the latest figures.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: This information is provided by the family expenditure survey 1987, which shows for example that 7 per cent. of households with an income of under £45 per week have a

  115
  car or van available, 54 per cent. of those with incomes between £125 and £150 per week and 98 per cent. of those with incomes over £550 per week. Multiple car ownership occurs at almost all household income levels. At about average household income, 63 per cent. of households have one car or van available, 10 per cent. have two, and 1 per cent. have three or more.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has done into levels of car ownership in relation to communities comprising small scattered settlements.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The Department of Transport has done no research on this topic. The most appropriate source of data for this work would be the 1981 census, which can provide data at enumeration district level.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether in the course of research done in connection with the national road traffic forecast 1989 his Department looked at levels and rates of change in car ownership by size of settlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: The Department makes local forecasts of origins and destinations of car trips at the local authorities district level consistent with the national forecasts, but these forecasts are not differentiated by size of settlement.

  Vehicles (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the environmental impact of road vehicles running on diesel as opposed to petrol; and what is his policy on the promotion of the use of diesel and petrol.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 9 February 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) on 18 December 1989, Official Report, columns 12–14.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made as to the implications for the Trident programme of the successful completion of the next stage of the CFE talks (CFE II).

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The current CFE negotiations have yet to be completed; not until that has been accomplished can the Government assess possible further steps on conventional arms control. On the separate issue of nuclear arms control, the United Kingdom's position on including our strategic deterrent in negotiations is well known and I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 215 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, volume 1 (Cm. 675–1).

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the proposed use of the Greenham common airbase;
  116
  (2) what information he has on whether the United States European intelligence unit will be moving from Germany to Greenham common.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 6 February 1990,Official Report, columns 591–92.

  Military Bases (Closures)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what closures of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or United States bases have been notified to him this year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In the United Kingdom the United States authorities have announced, after consultation with the United Kingdom Government, that RAF Wethersfield is to be returned to the Ministry of Defence by June 1991, RAF Greenham Common will revert to standby status on the departure of the remaining cruise missiles in May 1991 and RAF Fairford will become a standby base in October this year.

  Classified Documents
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions have security classified documents been lost or mislaid in each of the last 10 years by classification.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not held of the number of classified documents lost or mislaid.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review has been undertaken of his Department's filing system arising from the loss and rediscovery of documents.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Filing systems and other procedures are reviewed as part of the investigations which follow the reported loss of classified documents.

  Air-to-Surface Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has in regard of the relative costs of the SCRAM-T missile and the Anglo-French air-to-surface missile; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I assume that the question relates to the assessment of options for the replacement of the WE177 free-fall bomb. These studies are continuing, and it is not yet possible to identify potential costs with any accuracy. However, company costs will be commercially confidential and, in accordance with normal procedures, will not be made public.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make the final decision on the replacement for the WE177 bomb with a tactical air-to-surface missile.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 24 October 1989 at column 429.

  RAF Chicksands
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the amount of money that has been authorised in the United States budget FY91 for the construction of a satellite communication terminal at RAF Chicksands.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand from the United States authorities that a project for the construction of a satellite communication terminal at RAF Chicksands has been submitted for inclusion in the United States fiscal year 1991 budget. The budget has not yet been approved.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on what the primary function of the satellite communication terminal to be constructed at RAF Chicksands will be.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I understand from the United States authorities that the satellite communications terminal planned for RAF Chicksands, if approved, would be a facility of the United States defence communications system (DCS). The terminal would provide communications services for United States forces at that site and radio relay facilities for other forces in the United Kingdom and Europe.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of time taken for a precautionary inspection of a nuclear submarine's reactor facility; and what is the average cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Planned inspections take place during scheduled refits and maintenance periods. With regard to the programme of inspections currently under way, the time taken will vary from one submarine to another. The additional costs of carrying out these inspections are likely to be small, but have not been separately identified.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the meaning of the term "come alongside" when the decision is taken as a precautionary measure to inspect the reactor of a nuclear submarine.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In this context the term "come alongside" means to berth in a naval harbour.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether his Department has found it necessary to revise its risk estimates of a nuclear submarine reactor accident either at sea or in dock as a result of faults reported in one of Britain's nuclear-powered submarines;

  (2) if he has any plans to revise the current risk estimates for the likelihood of a maximum design accident as a primary containment failure of a nuclear submarine in dock; and if he will make a statement with special reference to the spread of radiation emitted in the course of an accident in dock into the atmosphere.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We continue to be guided by the advice of our independent safety advisers on the operation, in accordance with rigorous safety standards, of our nuclear-powered submarines. Submarines alongside have reactors closed down and present no hazard to the public.
  118
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if it is necessary for a nuclear submarine to enter a refit berth in order for an inspection to be carried out;

  (2) how many refit berths there are for nuclear submarines; and whether there is sufficient refit berth capacity to make inspections of the nuclear submarine fleet without unnecessary delay.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to release details of our nuclear refit capacity. However, a refit berth is not required for the current inspections being carried out on our nuclear submarines.

  Leopard II Tank
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities his Department is providing for Krauss Maffei Company to promote the Leopard II tank in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Krauss Maffei is aware that we are seeking industrial participation proposals from potential overseas suppliers competing for the Chieftain replacement requirement. The company will accordingly be undertaking a round of seminars as part of its marketing strategy to improve its knowledge of the United Kingdom defence market and to identify possible United Kingdom subcontractors. As with General Dynamics earlier, the Defence Export Services Organisation, in consultation with local chambers of commerce and regional development authorities, will be assisting Krauss Maffei in organising these seminars.

  HMS Vulcan
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defects were discovered in the HMS Vulcan P1 prototype reactor; and why it was closed down.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No defects were discovered in HMS Vulcan's PWR1 prototype reactor, which was shut down at the end of its programmed life.

  Belgian Troops (Germany)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the British Army of the Rhine of a withdrawal of Belgian troops from the Federal Republic of Germany.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Belgian authorities have made it clear that they have no current plans for large-scale unilateral troop withdrawals from the Federal Republic of Germany.

  United States Air Force 401st Wing
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected cost of the transfer of the United States air force 401st wing from Spain to Italy; and what part of the cost is projected as falling to(a) Britain, (b) the United States of America and (c) other NATO allies.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The provisional assessment of the total cost is £424 million. Of this £37 million would fall to be met by the United Kingdom, £198 million by the United States of America, and £189 million by other NATO nations.

  Submarine Bases
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid in rates each year for the past 10 years by his Department in respect of the Clyde submarine base, Faslane and Coulport, to the local authority.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply.

  The contributions in lieu of rates paid in respect of the Clyde submarine base, Faslane and Coulport, are set out in the table.
  120

  Clyde submarine base

  Faslane

  Coulport

  Non-domestic

  Domestic

  Non-domestic

  Domestic

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1980–81

  1,018,622

  618

  464,722

  504

  1981–82

  1,346,454

  834

  711,080

  680

  1982–83

  1,522,079

  980

  803,829

  800

  1983–84

  1,498,622

  965

  812,796

  788

  1984–85

  1,615,453

  1,034

  869,946

  844

  1985–86

  1,638,065

  1,704

  936,650

  899

  1986–87

  1,832,772

  1,160

  1,000,920

  976

  1987–88

  2,129,780

  1,278

  1,093,110

  1,075

  1988–89

  2,184,765

  1,278

  1,138,760

  1,075

  1989–90

  2,234,090

  —

  1,125,000

  —

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

Personal Pensions
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What protection exists for individuals who accept the incentive to opt for a personal pension (as opposed to SERPS), but who later find that their expectations of a reasonable pension in retirement are likely to be disappointed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, individuals who choose to take out a personal pension are made aware that the amount that they will receive at retirement is dependent on the level of investment return achieved by the companies. After retirement part of the pension must be increased each year by the rate of price increases up to 3 per cent. If prices rise by more than 3 per cent., an addition is added to the individual's state retirement pension.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that personal pensions are currently being advertised with the statement that the incentive being provided could amount to up to £1,000? Is it not immoral to persuade people to gamble with their future in this way? What will it cost if people seek to rejoin SERPS at a later date? Will it not then have been a very costly exercise?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is entirely up to the individual to decide whether he or she wishes to take out a personal pension and to seek appropriate advice in his or her case. In the case of personal pension schemes which are investments as defined in the Financial Services Act, persons regulated by bodies under that Act have a duty to provide the best advice on such products. It is for the individual to make arrangements for obtaining any further advice that may be necessary in the light of changing circumstances.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is it not clear that these private personal pensions are becoming a much riskier deal for the ordinary person than the safe insurance pension?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, that is entirely a matter for the individual to decide in the appropriate circumstances. We believe that an individual can make that decision for himself on advice from advisers, and having read, for example, our own book, NP 41 New Pension Choices—information for employees.

Tunisia: Flood Relief Aid
2.39 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they are giving, through the European Communities and in other ways, to the Government of Tunisia to help deal with the severe flooding which threatens that country's infrastructure.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we have provided bilaterally 50,000 US dollars —that is to say, approximately £30,000 —for the local purchase in Tunisia of emergency supplies of blankets, mattresses and clothing for those directly affected. The relief assistance is being co-ordinated by the United Nations Disaster Relief Office (UNDRO) working in conjunction with the local Red Crescent.
The European Community has contributed 300,000 ecu (£200,000) through UNDRO for relief items, Britain's share of which amounts to some 60,000 ecu (£40,000).
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that the British public have taken holidays in Tunisia in increasing numbers, not merely because of the climate but because of the remarkable, wonderful way in which they are treated? Is he further aware that the trade balances between Tunisia and the United Kingdom have increased enormously in our favour? While I am grateful for the noble Lord's Answer, can he assure me that our Government will keep in close touch with Tunisia to see whether we can help in any other way?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. He makes a very good point that I shall draw to the attention of my honourable friend.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the great British public at the moment are very much concerned with the flooding in this country? Possibly they would like to see their own floods cleared up before we start operations in other parts of the world.
Lord Reay: My Lords, my noble friend also makes a very good point, but one that is wider than that on the Order Paper.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give any information as to whether there has been damage to crops, forestation or roads from the floods? Have there been any requests from the Tunisian Government for technical assistance to help them rebuild after such destruction?
Lord Reay: My Lords, yes, I can give the House some idea of the damage that has recently been caused. Since 21st January of this year torrential rains have caused serious floods that have severely affected more than half of Tunisian territory. Twenty-five deaths have been reported. Approximately 30,000 people have been affected.

1089
Eleven thousand houses have been destroyed. We shall continue carefully to monitor the situation in consultation with our European Community partners and UNDRO.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who have been to Tunisia to see what has happened are conscious of those very brave people who are doing their best to repair the effects of this terrific onslaught, a tragedy that neither they nor anyone else expected? I am sure that the Tunisian Government will be grateful for what our Government are doing to help them in their very serious predicament.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I note and welcome what the noble Lord says.

Hong Kong: Ivory Trading
2.42 p.n.
Lord Dulverton Lord Dulverton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the decision to allow Hong Kong's stocks of ivory to be traded does not contradict their own support for the banning of the ivory trade world-wide, and how they intend to ensure that it will not give scope for the further illicit slaughter of the African elephant.
Lord Reay: My Lords, both the United Kingdom and Hong Kong are fully committed to the conservaton of the African elephant. Hong Kong will comply with the ban on international commercial trade in ivory after a breathing space of six months. Since June 1989 Hong Kong has banned imports of ivory into the Territory, thereby ensuring that there is no incentive for poaching.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and sympathise over the delicate state of our relations with Hong Kong. However, is he aware of the grave concern felt in, for instance, Kenya which is making such valiant efforts to save its elephants from destruction? Can Hong Kong's existing ivory stocks be so clearly identified as to preclude their augmentation by smuggling from illicit sources during the six-month period?
Lord Reay: My Lords, vigorous controls are in force in Hong Kong to try to prevent the situation feared by my noble friend. Apart from the import ban enforced in June last year, other measures have been taken. Every trader in Hong Kong must register all stocks above 5 kilogrammes and he must possess a licence for holding them. He will receive an export licence only if the ivory comes from those registered stocks and is accompanied by valid CITES documentation. Moreover, the destination of the ivory must not be a CITES party which exercises a ban on ivory imports. We believe that the controls should ensure that there is no loophole for entry on to the market of illegal ivory.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, following the first part of the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, what steps are the Government taking to support African governments in the fight against elephant poachers? Does the Minister agree that supporting initiatives such as the Luangwa Intergrated Resource Development Project in Zambia could contribute substantially to the eradication of poaching?
Lord Reay: My Lords, in the fight against poaching, we have provided assistance. for example, to Kenya in the form of trucks and ammunition. We are prepared to look carefully at any other requests which we may receive for such assistance. I shall look into the proposal made by the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the Question on the Order Paper. Is it not the case that the Government's decision to allow Hong Kong's stocks of ivory to be traded contradicts their support for the banning of the ivory trade worldwide? Why have they allowed ivory trading to re-start in Hong Kong, particularly in view of what was said by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn? Valiant attempts have been made by many African governments to stamp out the trade in ivory before the African elephant is extinguished.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we entered the reservation which runs out in five months' time in order to allow traders time to dispose of their legally acquired stocks in an orderly fashion and also to enable some 3,000 ivory carvers and workers in Hong Kong to find alternative employment. We considered that to enter a reservation was the best way of meeting our responsibilities to a dependent territory without compromising our strong support for measures which are intended to secure the future of the African elephant.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister give the precise amount of ivory in Hong Kong and say what proportion of it is deemed to come from legal sources?
Lord Reay: My Lords, at present the sum total of ivory in Hong Kong is 474 tonnes. It has been investigated by the local authorities and they found no evidence to suggest that any of it was acquired illegally.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there has been a reduction in the illicit slaughter of elephants and, if so, can he give the present figures?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have such figures but I shall gladly look into the matter and write to the noble Baroness.

Education: National Curriculum Subjects
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of their assurances during proceedings on the Education Reform Bill that there would be time available for teaching subjects not included in the national curriculum, such as Latin and a second modern language, how such subjects can be included in a timetable already congested by the requirements of the national curriculum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently described the flexibility which will be available to schools in the last two years of compulsory education. His purpose has been to establish a broad framework which will enable schools to plan for all the national curriculum subjects and religious education and for optional subjects such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness. He has invited the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council to undertake a number of tasks which will help achieve that aim.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat encouraging Answer. Does it mean that after the age of 14 it will be possible for people to vary the national curriculum and so take in not only the subjects that I have mentioned but also some other marked omissions; for example the basis of economics and home economics, which, contrary to what one might expect, cover a great deal connected with the rearing and upbringing of children and the satisfactory development of family life, which is thought to be near to the heart of the Government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give an encouraging answer to the noble Baroness who has raised an important topic which was discussed during proceedings on the Bill and has since been a continuing concern of teachers. In his speech to the Society of Education Officers on 25th January, my right honourable friend spelt out in great detail the kind of flexibility which the noble Baroness requires. I can promise her that the flexibility to satisfy the needs of the most able and the least able and to introduce all the subjects mentioned by her will be accommodated. It is important to note that all courses, once approved, will build on attainment targets and programmes of study so that they will all be brought into the framework of the national curriculum.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are delighted that the Secretary of State is apprised of the problem. However, am I not right in saying that he has no powers to achieve the solution which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and others of us have in mind? Is it not right that all he can do is to encourage? Furthermore, is not what the Minister says against all experience in education, and if there is any flexibility it is used entirely for the sake of examinations and what is compulsory? Is it not excessively optimistic to assume that the most
1092
important subject, economics, will not be crowded out if it is not necessarily to be examined and assessed? Is there not a serious problem which we must face here?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises another interesting point. It is true that the Secretary of State, who wishes to achieve flexibility, will go as far as he can under the present regulations. However, he also has intentions to amend the 1989 information regulations. From what I have heard from your Lordships, I believe that they will be approved by this House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I had not heard that before and that is welcome news. Will such an amendment of regulations be the subject of a debate in your Lordships' House so that we can bring to bear the many views which we have on these matters?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am tempted to say that the noble Lord has the advantage of me in terms of procedures of the House. I do not know in what form the matter will come before the House. However, I know that there will be an opportunity to make representations on the amendments.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I was delighted to hear her mention religious education? Is that now included in the national curriculum because I understood that, originally, it was not?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes, it is entirely within the framework of the Act.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite suggested that economics is the most important subject. Will he be good enough to let me know what direct benefit will accrue to mankind as a result of such studies?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I dare not say that the study of economics is not of benefit to mankind. What is important is not only the study of economics but also vocational studies. City and Guilds, BTEC and RSA courses will all be submitted for approval and will be brought into the framework of the Act.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the importance of knowledge of economics among the largest number of people so that they are able to make a proper assessment of the policies of the Labour Party?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's comments are noted.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does it fall within the domain of the noble Baroness to see that there is a reasonable proportion of the printed word in our newspapers in regard to political matters? These days about 90 per cent. is in support of the Tory Party and 10 per cent. in support of the other parties of this political democracy.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that my noble friends on this side of the House would say almost the opposite.

South Africa and Nelson Mandela: Policy
2.52 p.m
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to put the Question of which I have given Private Notice to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their policies towards South Africa have changed as a result of the release of Nelson Mandela.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am able to tell the House that a Private Notice Question in almost identical terms will be answered in another place this afternoon and that Answer will be repeated in this House in the form of a Statement. In those circumstances I did not believe it to be right to allow the Question of the noble Lord.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I take that as a reasonable reply.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that after the Answer to the Private Notice Question from another place, which will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Reay, my noble friend Lord Ullswater, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on electricity privatisation.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Food Safety Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment six social security orders will be taken.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to town and country planning excluding special controls in respect of buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest and in respect of hazardous substances with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments in relation
1094
to special controls in respect of buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to special controls in respect of hazardous substances with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for repeals, consequential amendments, transitional and transitory matters and savings in connection with the consolidation of enactments in the Town and Country Planning Bill 1990, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill 1990 including provisions to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 28th February
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Annan and the Lord Birkett set down for 28th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate. —(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
2.54 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be

1095
agreed to. Your Lordships will probably remember that it was the recommendation of the Group on the Working of the House that there should be an annual review of any difficulties which had occurred in procedure during the past Session by the Procedure Committee.
That is what occurred at the last meeting of that committee. I believe that the report is self-explanatory but perhaps I may briefly make three points on it. First, on time limits for ministerial Statements, the present situation is that there is a 20-minute period allowed for discussion on such a Statement and that 20 minutes begins from the time when the Minister's Statement ends. That appears to be somewhat unrealistic because the average time taken during the past Session was 28 minutes and a good many discussions went on rather longer than that.
One problem about the 20-minute period running from that time is that it takes in the two main speeches from the main Opposition parties as well as the Government's reply to them. Therefore, to make it more realistic, the recommendation of the Procedure Committee is that the 20 minutes for discussion will begin when the Minister has replied to the two Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. That will give a full 20-minute period of discussion to those of your Lordships on the Back Benches who wish to participate.
However, the committee also recommends that that new limit should be strictly enforced and draws attention once again to the Standing Order which states that Statements should not be made an occasion for immediate debate.
The next point I mention concerns the consideration of Commons amendments and reasons. In the last Session we went somewhat out of order on the Commons amendments, due mainly to the fact that there were such a lot of them, many on matters which we had not previously considered. Therefore, in the circumstances I believe that it was perfectly understandable that there was a certain lack of order. The committee does not propose any major alterations to our present arrangements except that we recommend that the convention against speaking after the Minister should be extended from the present rule, where it applies on Report and Third Reading, to consideration of Commons amendments and reasons. That has been considered to be the rule before, but it has never been in writing.
The third and final point is on the sub judice rule. The Leader of the House drew our attention to the fact that there was a discrepancy in the practice between the two Houses with regard to petitions for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. He consulted the Law Lords and the proposal now put before the House by the committee is that the sub judice rule should apply in future to matters which are the subject of petitions for leave to appeal to this House rather than as previously, when it applied only from the moment that leave to appeal was given.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report:
ORDERED TO REPORT:—
1. The Committee have undertaken their annual review of procedural matters in the preceding session, as recommended by the Group on the Working of the House, and endorsed by the First Report of the Procedure Committee (Session 1987–88), to determine whether any difficulties occurred which warrant report to the House. They have concluded that the attention of the House should be called to three matters; Time Limits for Ministerial Statements, Interventions in Debate and Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons. They also report on two further matters to which their attention has been called, the Sub Judice Rule and the application of the rotation rule to the Broadcasting and Hybrid Instruments Committee.
TIME LIMITS FOR MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
2. In February 1988, the Committee recommended a time limit of 20 minutes for discussion of a repeated Commons Statement (1st Report, Session 1987–88). In January 1989, they recommended a similar limit for discussion of Lords Statements (1st Report, Session 1988–89). Since that Report was agreed to, the House has heard 33 Statements, and discussion exceeded the limit on 23 on them. The longest discussion time was 51 minutes. The Leader of the House did not intervene on that occasion, but he did on six of the others. The average discussion time since the House agreed to the 20 minute rule has been 28 minutes. It is clear that the present recommendation is not being followed.
3. Under Standing Order 33, Statements "should not be made the occasion for immediate debate". The Committee suggest that it would be helpful if the usual channels could, when appropriate, give an early indication that a debate is to be arranged, which might serve to curtail the immediate discussion of a Statement.
4. The Committee draw attention to the fact that recent experience indicates that the Opposition spokesmen take a considerable proportion of the 20 minutes allowed for discussion. They suggest that the Leaders and Whips should take steps to ensure that interventions by front bench spokesmen are in accordance with the spirit of Standing Order 33. In order to preserve the rights of back benchers, they recommend that the time limit of 20 minutes for discussion of a Statement should begin when the Minister has replied to the two Opposition spokesmen. They further recommend that this new limit should be strictly enforced, and that the Leader of the House, with the co-operation of the Opposition front benches, should have the responsibility of calling the attention of the House to any failure to comply with this limit.
INTERVENTIONS IN DEBATE
5. The Brief Guide contains the following passage, headed
INTERVENTION:
"A speaker may be questioned about a point that he has raised, but such interruptions should be brief, especially in time-related debates" (p 8).
No guidance on this subject, however, appears in the Companion.
6. The Committee recommend, in the light of a series of incidents during 1989, the following guidance:
"A Lord who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification. Giving way accords with the traditions and customary courtesy of the House. It is, however, recognised that a Lord may justifiably refuse to give way, for instance when he is in the middle of an argument, or to repeated interruption or in time-limited proceedings. Lengthy or frequent intervention, even with the consent of the Lord speaking, is undesirable."
CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND REASONS
7. During the 1989 spill-over, the House spent 20 hours spread over 6 days considering 1100 Commons amendments to 4 major bills (Football Spectators Bill [HL], 2 November; Companies Bill [HL], 7, 9 and 13 November; Children Bill [in], 8 November; Local Government and Housing Bill, 14 November), at an average rate of just under one amendment a minute. There were complaints from all sides of the House about the scale of the amendments; but that is a matter for the Government. In the circumstances, the Committee believe that the procedures, of the House which were fashioned in days when legislation was a more leisurely process, coped remarkably well.
8. Nevertheless, the principles of orderly debate in the House were frequently overlooked. Lords spoke more than once to a

1097
motion, and those who were entitled to do so by leave of the House (usually the Minister) omitted to seek leave; Lords continued the debate after the mover of the motion or amendment had replied, and even where the formula "Before the noble Lord sits down" would have brought the proceedings within the limits of the acceptable, it was omitted.
9. One particular procedural question calls for resolution. In debate on an amendment to a Commons amendment to the Football Spectators Bill, a member of the House who spoke after the Minister was called to order (2nd Nov., col. 394). The House agreed in January 1988 that it was undesirable for Lords other than the mover of the amendment to speak (except for elucidation) after the Minister on Report and Third Reading, unless the Minister had deliberately spoken early. But nothing was then said about consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons. The Committee consider that the convention against speaking after the Minister makes for orderly debate, and recommend that it be explicitly extended to consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons.
SUB JUDICE RULE
10. The House has agreed (First Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 1963–64) that the practice governing motions and questions relating to matters sub judice should be similar in both Houses of Parliament. The Leader of the House has drawn to the attention of the Committee a discrepancy in the practice of the two Houses so far as petitions for leave to appeal to the House of Lords are concerned. In the House of Commons, a case is deemed to be sub judice from the moment a petition for leave is presented to the House of Lords. In the Lords, however, the sub judice rule is held to apply only from the moment that leave to appeal is given.
11. In the light of unanimous advice from the Law Lords, the Committee recommended that the practice of this House should be assimilated to that of the House of Commons, so that, in future, the sub judice rule would apply to matters which are the subject of petitions for leave to appeal to this House.
APPLICATION OF ROTATION RULE TO BROADCASTING AND HYBRID INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEES
12. The Committee recommend that the rotation rule, which is applied to most Select Committees of the House in order to secure a regular turnover of membership, should be applied to the Broadcasting Committee provided that no more than two members retire per session, and to the Hybrid Instruments Committee provided that no more than one member retires per session.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the House ought to feel considerable concern about this report, which reveals a rather alarming situation. If we continue down the way we have been travelling we are in danger of moving further along the path of needing a Speaker to keep order. I shall not discuss all the items; many of them will reappear. The particular issue to which the noble Lord referred —the question of speaking after the Minister has spoken on a Commons amendment —reveals a serious situation, because your Lordships know that amendments come from another House which have not been adequately debated. We then have the Minister speaking, we hope early on, when the amendment really ought to be discussed in some Committee form.
I hope your Lordships will not take this as a lighthearted matter. The noble Lord the Leader of the House —and it is no good the Chief Whip looking so angry as he always does on these occasions; I am glad to see he is not so angry now —exercises considerable charm, but he needs to take a tougher line both with the Opposition and himelf. A number of noble Lords have been out of order on a number of occasions. I do not think we shall finish this subject just by agreeing to the Motion today. There
1098
are a number of other aspects. Unless the Government can get their programme under control and ensure that amendments coming to the House of Lords from the Commons do not represent almost a new Bill, as they do on occasions, we shall have trouble like this again.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord. The subject was discussed fully in committee and I think, and hope, that the very exceptional circumstances in the last Session will not apply again.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should also like to support my noble friend. Twenty minutes for discussion after the Government have made a Statement is quite inadequate, and Statements from the Government have become longer and longer. When I first came to this House a Statement was a Statement and did not contain so many contentious matters so that automatically the Opposition parties have a lot to say about it.
The committee probably did not look at this matter quite as seriously as it should have done. If the Statement is to be followed by only a short debate, the Statement itself should be short.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may speak again. I understand what the noble Baroness says, but the point is that a Statement should not be made the subject of immediate debate. A debate should perhaps be held at a later time if it is an important Statement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would draw attention, as he did not in his admirably succinct opening, to what seems to be a very useful alteration of the rule in respect of giving way during a speech. Several noble Lords have been concerned that, with the growth in time-limited debates, sometimes involving speeches limited to a very short duration indeed (the more popular the subject the shorter the duration of the speech), the speaker in question is put in a very difficult position as to whether to give way. If he does not give way he is thought to be not acting in accordance with the spirit of the House; if he gives way in the course of a four or five-minute speech, he wrecks the speech. It is extremely useful that the Select Committee has firmly laid down that during a time-limited debate a person speaking can refuse to give way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "food" and other basic expressions]:
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert —
("(aa) articles and substances of no nutritional value which are used for human consumption;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in introducing Amendment No. 1 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Your Lordships will remember that we had a useful discussion at Committee stage about the definition of food. I undertook to consider a government amendment to bring within the definition items such as certain slimming aids which we would not normally regard as food but which were marketed for human consumption. Amendment No. 1 has this effect.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham pointed out that the existing wording of the Bill seemed only to cover oysters, which are fish for the purposes of this Bill, because fish are defined in Clause 53(1) to include molluscs. Amendment No. 3 enables the Bill to apply to live creatures whenever they are used for human consumption. This brings in other creatures eaten live such as elvers. Amendment No. 2 ensures that the definition of ingredients covers all ingredients of things classed as food.
I should point out that these amendments are only the first three of a quartet. There is one further amendment which I regret has caused some difficulty and which we have not been able to finalise in time to table for Report stage. This amendment will make the reference to "drugs" in line 16 more precise, thus avoiding any undue degree of overlap between food and medicines legislation. However, it must also be drafted to ensure that there is no gap; in other words, so that medicines such as cough sweets are properly controlled and labelled. This will be the subject of an amendment in due course. I hope your Lordships will be able to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we did not originally raise the query from these Benches but we were happy to see that it was raised and equally happy with the explanation the noble Baroness has given of the amendments now before us. We note that we are to await a further amendment regarding drugs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("drink or such products") and insert ("anything falling within this subsection").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("commonly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 107 and 110. This group of amendments follows up the commitments given at Committee stage to extend, or to consider extending, statutory consultation to various regulation- and order-making powers where the Bill did not already require it. I made clear at Committee stage that I
1100
am very much in favour of consulting, whenever possible, on proposals for secondary legislation. I hinted at some of the areas in which I saw statutory consultations as appropriate. The main effect of Amendment No. 107 is that Ministers will be required to consult with interested organisations on all regulations and orders made under the Bill, other than the handful of powers where statutory consultation would not be appropriate for very good reasons.
The exceptions fall into three categories. First, there are two powers which might have to be used in an emergency with no time for statutory consultation: the emergency control order powers and powers to prohibit imports of specified foods. Secondly, there are two powers where statutory consultation would be pointless; powers to make orders to obtain information or food samples, which we would use only if voluntary approaches had failed, and regulations implementing directly applicable European Community provisions in the UK.
Thirdly, towards the end of the Bill there are various technical order-making powers for the making of commencement orders. Clause 59 is one example for which consultation would not normally be provided. The requirement to consult on orders under Clause 5(4) to allocate functions between food authorities causes one technical problem to which I alluded at Committee stage. An order under Clause 5(4) will be needed as soon as the first provision of the Bill comes into force so that food authorities are clear about their responsibilities.
To overcome this problem Amendment No. 107 contains a provision that will allow the necessary consultations to be carried out before the Bill starts to come into force. The other aspects of this group of amendments are all technical. As well as adding the requirements on consultations, Amendment No. 107 sweeps up all the provisions of Clause 48 regarding statutory instruments into Clause 47. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this amendment which incorporates one I moved at Committee stage, which was Amendment No. 19 at that time. I believe that she has covered the situation quite satisfactorily.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this combination of procedures that my noble friend is proposing is the right one. It is absolutely excellent that the relevant groups representing various interests, which means representing consumer interests as well as those of the producers, should be consulted, and then should follow the parliamentary procedure, so that Parliament has a look at whatever the Government propose. In these circumstances that seems the right way to do things except, as my noble friend said, when there is an extreme emergency, when the procedure would take too long. I personally am extremely appreciative of what she has done.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carter raised a question at Committee stage

1101
concerning the breadth of consultation which the Government envisage. I wish to reinforce the plea he made then: namely, that, when consulting, the Government will give a commitment that they will consult as broadly and as widely as possible with organisations likely to have an interest in the matter.
I ask the Minister whether the effect of the amendment on ministerial directions, which we understand may be issued without consultations —for example, directions under Clause 6(3) which remove functions from food authorities to the relevant Government department —may be carried out without discussion with the food authorities or other bodies concerned. We are wondering whether the Government at this late stage will consider extending their consultation commitment to include ministerial direction.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can answer the first part of the noble Lord's question in the affirmative. I believe that we have gone about as far as we can, but I shall take note of what the noble Lord has said because, as he will be well aware, there will always be chances in another place to add or take away from whatever is written.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
3.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Extended meaning of "sale" etc.]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("any").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 7, and also to the Government Amendment No. 6. At Committee stage I drew attention to the fact that Clause 2(1)(b) in the Bill was too all-encompassing and gave Ministers more or less unlimited power to make orders concerning practically anything to do with food. In my two amendments, Nos. 5 and 7, I seek in a modest way to reduce the total comprehensiveness of this subsection.
My noble friend the Minister kindly discussed this matter with me earlier. She has come forward with another way of doing much the same thing. Both suggestions are not entirely satisfactory in the sense of restraining Ministers from making orders because they have pretty good powers even with my amendments, let alone those of my noble friends. I am most grateful to my noble friend for trying to make it appear at any rate as though these powers are limited.
The main consideration is the amendment which we have just agreed to. The new subsection (4) of Clause 47 will make it compulsory to consult about an order of this nature. So one hopes that the people who appear to be interested will be able to restrain Ministers if great powers go to their heads. I do not propose to quarrel with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's wish to narrow slightly the scope of the order-making power to extend the definition of "sale" in respect of food and to curb unruly Ministers, though I believe he need have no fear of that. My noble friend and others expressed concern at Committee stage about the breadth of this power. We have reflected further on this matter, as he is well aware, and our Amendment No. 6 is tabled to meet my noble friend's concern.
Moreover, as my noble friend has just reminded us, we promised to provide for statutory consultation on orders made under Clause 2. That has now been achieved by the Government amendment to Clause 47 which we have just discussed. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 and to leave standing Government Amendment No. 6.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("such other thing done with respect to food as may be") and insert ("other thing which is done with respect to food and is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Ministers having functions under Act]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 27, after ("means") insert (", subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 41, 112, 113 and 114. The purpose of these amendments is to alter the powers to make emergency control orders under Clause 13 of the Bill. As presently drafted, an order made by the Minister of Agriculture can extend only to England and Wales. In normal circumstances this would be adequate and orders relating to Scotland would be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
However, circumstances could well arise involving both England and Scotland. For instance, if meat pies accidentally contaminated with glass were made in the North of England and distributed in Scotland, an order covering both England and Scotland would then be necessary. It would of course be possible to do this by having an order signed by both the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State. But noble Lords will appreciate that speed is of the essence in making orders.
Extending the powers of the Minister to Scotland reduces the possibility of a delay which could have potentially disastrous consequences. The problem does not arise in the case of a Scottish order because the Secretary of State for Scotland already has powers to make orders including England, should they be necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Food Safety Agency
.—(1) The Minister shall as soon as practicable establish an independent Food Safety Agency comprising representatives of—

(a) consumers;

(b) food producers;

(c) food authorities; and

(d) the Minister and the Secretary of State.

(2) The Agency shall —

(a) review the operation of this Act and make any recommendation as to future legislation;

(b) submit an annual report to Parliament on food safety; and

(c) produce national guidelines for the inspection and sampling of food and the enforcement of standards determined under this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stems in part from the experience which we had at the Committee stage of the Bill when we tried to persuade the Government to accept a somewhat lesser proposal. Not merely did we fail in that task but we were rather rebuffed for our unwanted initiative. That has forced us to the situation where those of us who believed in the policy of the half loaf now have had to acknowledge the fact that the people who told us that we were wrong by proceeding in that fashion were, after all, correct. What we are seeking to do today is to write into the Bill an obligation on the Minister to establish as soon as practicable an independent food safety agency. That is what the amendment proposes.
Some background is, however, necessary in order that the House may be aware of the circumstances surrounding the amendment. The Minister of Agriculture announced on 2nd November last year the setting up of an internal food safety directorate within his ministry. The announcement took place ahead of the Bill. At the same time he also announced the creation of a consumer panel. At the Committee stage the Opposition tried modestly to change the food safety directorate as announced in November from a wholly internal ministerial body to one including an independent chairman together with representatives of professional bodies representing environmental health officers, trading standards officers and public analysts, with some access to the agency by and from the newly created consumer panel. That was unacceptable to the Government.
As a consequence we are now proposing the kind of body which is generally favoured by informed public opinion at the present time. We propose an independent food safety agency comprising representatives of consumers, food producers, food authorities, as defined in the Bill, as well as the Minister and the Secretary of State. The function of this independent food safety agency would be to review the operation of the Act itself and to make recommendations in the light of that review as to future legislation. We believe that food safety will not be wholly catered for as soon as the Bill passes into law but will be an ongoing subject. In order to cater for that we believe that the task of the food safety agency should be one of continuous review. We believe also that the agency should report
1104
annually to both Houses of Parliament on food safety.
At the present time when food emergencies arise, Statements are made in both Houses of Parliament as to the nature of the emergency and the action being taken to deal with it. As far as it goes one must say that those Statements are satisfactory. However, at present there is no annual review of experience during the year with food safety in general. The amendment seeks to put that right by placing on the independent food safety agency the obligation to report annually to Parliament on the overall question of food safety.
Lastly, we envisage the agency having the task of producing national guidelines for inspection and sampling of food and the enforcement of standards under the Act. Why do we feel that there is scope for such a body and a need to spell out in legislation the task which we feel it ought to discharge? It is increasingly obvious that an informed and representative body of public opinion in this country believes there must be an external input in an area of growing concern to consumers. I need not spell it out in any detail because I am sure noble Lords are well aware of the concern not merely about particular incidents but about the overall question of food safety, with particular regard to food poisoning, salmonella and listeria which have occupied us so seriously in the past couple of years. These are subjects which require independent examination so that the public at large can be assured that not merely is the Ministry concerned but that some degree of public oversight is being exercised in this vitally important area.
The Bill itself is the result of the concern of consumers and laudably seeks to improve safety measures by keener inspection and tougher penalties. We applaud those objectives but we still recognise that the Bill lacks the independence and openness which those who speak for consumers desire. The Act will need to be reviewed in any case, and certain questions will be asked. For example, are food authorities under the Act discharging their duties? Are they adequately funded in order to discharge those duties? Are food producers, both primary producers and processors, doing what the Act requires of them? These tasks can be discharged by an independent agency in full co-operation with Ministers. The agency can recommend to Ministers what changes it feels are required. The obligation to report annually to Parliament is vitally important. It is significant that no body exists at present. In consequence there is no such annual reporting at the present time.
Another important aspect of its work will be to comment on the use of delegated powers under the Bill. Good as the Bill is, undoubtedly most of the real mechanics which the Bill seeks to create will be in the form of delegated powers. It is important that an independent body should have a look, on an ongoing basis, at the use being made of such delegated powers. We would also empower the agency to produce national guidelines for the inspection and sampling of food and the enforcement of standards under the Act. I ask myself—and those who advise me ask

1105
themselves—whether the Minister of Agriculture can have any real objection to constructive proposals of this kind.
These proposals are implicit in the Bill itself. The sharing of responsibility for them can only be objected to by those who believe that paternalism must dominate the relationship between the Ministry of Agriculture and consumers in Britain. Sharing responsibility is a logical concept in a Bill of this kind which is basically the product of public concern. If the Government choose to reject what we propose, not merely will they be sending the wrong signals to all with an involvement in food —that is to say, all of us —but they will bring about an irresistible clamour for the establishment of a wholly independent body to act for and on behalf of consumers. For those and many other reasons with which I shall not trouble the House, I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, despite the eloquent way in which the amendment was moved, I very much hope that my noble friend will resist the temptation to accept it. What is the point of giving duties to a government department and then saying that, whatever the temptation may be, we do not trust that government department and we shall set up another organisation to double bank it? That seems to be a policy of despair. How many people are likely to serve on this food safety agency? Every section of the food producing industry would have to be represented. Every section of the country would have to be represented. By the end of the process it would be a very large body.
If the body were to be of any use it would, in pursuance of two of its duties under subsection (2)(a), be in great haste to make recommendations for future legislation. One of the ambitions that I cherish in a modest way is to reduce this overwhelming Niagara of legislation to something of a trickle. We should discourage it from becoming a tidal wave which would inundate us all. I very much wonder whether we need to have more annual reports. Before we set up bodies which are encouraged to deliver more annual reports we should think very carefully. Much the same considerations apply to bodies which will threaten us with national guidelines. One wonders who will read such documents with avidity. Who will read annual reports with avidity and interest? Who will follow the national guidelines and who will see that the national guidelines are duly observed? I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. It is a fact, sad though it may be, that public confidence has suffered enormously, especially since December 1988. However, that was not, as was implied by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, due to unease as regards the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; it is because there is a general lack of confidence in
1106
new technologies used in many practices in food processing, and so on.
The amendment seeks to create a consensus, which seems to be sadly missing in this country, on the way in which food safety should be approached. Such a body, constituted in the way proposed, would give the public the feeling —and, I suggest, the evidence —that all those concerned right the way through the food chain were doing their utmost to deal with the problems which have given rise to some of these fears, especially as regards eggs, chickens, cook-chill foods and in particular microwave cooking.
There is a strong feeling abroad that there is too little consumer input into decisions which are made which lead to government legislation. It is in the spirit of consensus that I suggest that this amendment should be accepted and I urge your Lordships to support it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on the face of it, when it is suggested to your Lordships in the course of debating legislation that such and such a body should be set up, it always seems an attractive proposition. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made it sound as though the proposed body would increase public confidence and reduce the concern about salmonella and chickens.
Those of us who have served on such quangos where you have one, two or three representatives of disparate groups of people —including those who eat the food, those who shop for food, those who supply the food, those who sell the food and, of course, representatives of Government —know that such people sit around at meeting after meeting deciding what to say to the Government. Thereafter, the government of the day, after consultation with Parliament, has to decide what to do. Anyone who has been concerned in such a quango knows that it is a very slow moving process and that it is not really representative of public opinion.
It seems to me that it would be far better to try to move towards a situation where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food —and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland —really gets into the process of meeting the interests of the consumer as well as those of the producer. In my view this is already being done. We have the directorate which is to be set up within the Ministry, and a consumer panel. The people concerned will discuss how shoppers feel and will be answerable to Parliament. It is the voters who have an interest in this matter and not the people who happen to be put on a quango. In my view this is a very outmoded suggestion and one which is most unlikely to work. Moreover, I am somewhat surprised that two parties who aspire to being modern-minded should have suggested the introduction of such a body.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. In reply to the noble Lord who suggested that such a body would have to have a representative of every company, I must say that he obviously has no knowledge of the food federations, which are highly organised and not very extensive in character. Indeed, it would be very simple to have such representation.

1107
Why is this legislation needed? It is needed because the consumer is becoming increasingly worried about these matters. Indeed, almost daily we hear about some kind of scare in relation to food. Frankly, when I read about the amimal feed that was imported from Taiwan via Holland, I wondered, "What have we come to now?" During the war when we could not import feed we fed our cattle perfectly adequately on silage derived from produce which was actually grown in this country.
Today our food is increasingly undergoing so many processes and so much handling that it is almost impossible for us to know just how safe it is. Indeed, this morning we heard reports that Perrier water is to be tested. You would not have thought that there could be any danger in such water—or would you?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Yes you would!
Baroness Phillips: I should say to the noble and learned Lord that if it was left simply to the Almighty, then let us have it; there would not be any danger. It is the intervention of man which makes it unsuitable.
It is all very well to say that quangos consist of people who just sit around discussing matters. I have sat on quangos. I refer to the NCC. Indeed, it was a Labour Government who created the National Consumer Council. It has carried out excellent work. Of course, there were disagreements, but we always came to a useful conclusion which we passed on to the Government. We watched over matters, as indeed does the present council. Moreover, it constantly produces reports. However, I was somewhat disturbed to see that the qualification of the new chairman of the council —of whom, I must say, I have never heard as regards voluntary movements —for holding the position was that she had actually owned fisheries. That is a rather unusual qualification when I think of the distinguished ladies—and, it is mainly ladies —who have held the position of chairman of this particular body.
We need to provide for such a body under this Bill. Everyone eats food. We must watch over many matters in the field of safety, but this applies especially to food: that is, the food we eat and that we give to our children. I am quite sure that there would not be too many meetings of this particular quango. Moreover, there would be guidance, together with the back-up of the law which we seek to consolidate in the Bill.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, the amendment proposed would ensure that food safety was looked at from a broader perspective and that it was not just the big battalions that were listened to when things went wrong. In my view, the position of the consumer has always been important. It is not at all clear that the consumer panel as envisaged at present would have any real power. Consumers need to be represented on the main body where the major recommendations are made so that their views can carry at least as much weight as those of everyone else. If that does not happen, then I fear that the
1108
credibility gap which already exists will only grow wider. For that reason above all else, I support the amendment.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned the National Consumer Council. However, I find myself very much in agreement with the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. She referred to the need to protect the interests of consumers. But I wonder —and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can enlighten us upon this in greater detail —why it is that the National Consumer Council cannot do exactly what is proposed in the amendment. Surely the interests of consumers are important. Moreover, there is an existing quango which does precisely what is set out under the terms of the amendment. Therefore, we do not need any duplication in the matter because that would only add immeasurably to the cost of such exercises.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in my view this amendment is rather like the curate's egg. I think it is true to say that it is to some extent well meaning; but it is much too widely drawn. For example, what are "food authorities"? Do they represent the catering industry or the manufacturing industry? Moreover, the cost of what is proposed would be phenomenal.
As regards consumers, there is that admirable magazine entitled Which?—at least, sometimes it is admirable. It closely studies the food industry, among others. I agree with my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that what is proposed would duplicate matters too greatly. We already have many food authorities set up within the Government and the real problem here is that we have a very vague definition for these matters. I do not believe that this exercise, albeit well meaning, will work.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when I rejected his "half loaf- at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, promised to return with a full loaf of bread. I cannot say that I like his full loaf any better; perhaps he should stay out of the baking business! I am however grateful to the noble Lords at least for putting into their proposal how they think this agency should be structured and what it should do. Many who have made similar suggestions have not taken their thinking that far. At least the noble Lords have done us the courtesy of filling out their proposal and it therefore makes it much easier for me to comment on it.
Perhaps I may first deal with the composition of the food safety agency. Despite the presence of a representative of the Minister and the Secretary of State, I see that the intention is that the members of the agency should be independent of government. I should point out that Ministers already draw heavily upon independent advice in exercising their powers under the existing Act and they will do so under the Bill. I remind my noble friend Viscount Montgomery that the National Consumer Council is one of those bodies whose advice we carefully listen to.
Persons with backgrounds in academic life, in the food industry, in food authorities and in the

1109
consumer movement are on the Food Advisory Committee; there is a whole raft of committees of independent medical experts available to the Government through the Chief Medical Officer to advise on many facets of food safety and public health; and there are other independent committees of a scientific nature dealing with pesticides, novel foods and other similar matters. Advice from these committees is usually published and the evidence is there for all to see that Ministers almost invariably act on that advice. A great advantage of the system is its flexibility: so that the Government can go quickly and urgently as necessary to the right experts to get advice and moreover call together specific experts into an ad hoc committee when circumstances demand it.
Equally important from the point of view of today's debate, is that my right honourable friend has also set up a consumer panel. This is intended to be complementary to all the other independent committees to which I have alluded. The panel will consist of nine ordinary consumers drawn from all parts of the United Kingdom. They will not represent the views of any particular consumer organisations but will represent their own views which we hope will reflect on what ordinary consumers are thinking on various food issues. The panel will be chaired by my right honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary who has policy responsibilities for food. It will thus create a dialogue between ordinary consumers and Ministers which should be for the benefit of both.
I am most grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton. The points which he raised were reasonable and right. The same applies to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I am not sure how the proposed agency would help the noble Baroness Lady Phillips with her fears.
I now come to what the noble Lords propose that this agency should do. I note first that, apart from producing guidelines on inspections, sampling and enforcement, the agency would have no executive functions under the Bill. It would have the task of reviewing, commenting and reporting. This is perhaps the function of a permanent advisory committee rather than that of an agency. Indeed it is a job which has already in part been remitted to the Food Advisory Committee. I take it that we can therefore regard the proposal as quite distinct from some of the ideas we have heard for taking functions out of the Ministry and placing them in an agency. Such an agency would be much less directly responsible to Parliament and much worse equipped for maintaining surveillance over the whole of the food chain.
It is of course right that we should keep the operation of the Act under review. I do, however, have great doubts about setting up a statutory agency for the purpose. There are many other matters about which people feel passionately, but surely the House does not wish to set a new fashion and set up an agency to monitor the operation of every important Act we pass. This can be done by non-statutory means which is simpler and provides greater flexibility in the way the task is carried out.
1110
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that my right honourable friend the Minister is determined to put food safety and the consumer first. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who is unfortunately away, paid tribute to him on Second Reading. She said that he had:
"demonstrated his commitment and that of the Government with this Bill."—[Official Report, 5/12/89; col. 779.]
When the Bill becomes an Act, we shall of course keep its operation under review and we shall call upon independent experts, through our advisory committees, and in other ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked me about annual reports, to which he attached great importance, dealing with food poisoning statistics and guidelines. Food poisoning statistics are dealt with in the report by the Chief Medical Officer or the Public Health Laboratory Service. Other matters are not really cyclical and thus are not appropriate for an annual report. However, the Food Safety Directorate will publish a bulletin to keep the public informed on food issues.
Further, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, raised the question of guidelines for inspection, sampling and enforcement of standards. These are already provided for in Clause 39. We have agreed that the codes of practice concerned shall be subject to consultation in draft with interested parties.
I hope that with those assurances the noble Lords will withdraw their amendment. I agree with the various remarks, particularly those of my noble friend Lady Carnegy. There is good reason for keeping the whole food chain from producer through to consumer together. Perhaps we may look once more at the lead in milk case. I make no apology for citing this example yet again because it is a good one. With the whole range of responsibilities that my right honourable friend has, he was able to take thorough and comprehensive action to handle the crisis and to draw on a multiplicity of disciplines to do so. Had his responsibilities been more confined, he would not have been able to react in the same speedy and comprehensive way. This could surely have been to the detriment of the consumer. I think that I have made my case.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and others who have spoken in this brief debate on the amendment for their contributions. I shall do my best, without taking up too much time, to reply to some of the points which have been raised in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, felt that there was no justification for the proposal in the amendment. Of course, if that is a considered view then the other questions which he raised are secondary to it and relatively unimportant. The number of people to serve on the food safety agency would be for the Minister to determine. He saw no need for such bodies, yet paradoxically such bodies exist. I recall, for example, that under the agricultural marketing Acts there is provision for a consumer body which reports from time to time. The sad feature about that body is that it is underfunded and lacking the necessary power to do the job which was envisaged

1111
for it when the agricultural marketing Acts were passed in Parliament.
The noble Baroness Lady Carnegy favours the status quo. Our feeling is that the status quo, quite frankly, does not have the clout and it is in an attempt to give a new body that additional power that we have tabled the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. It is not the status quo that I favour; it is the proposals in the Bill which seem to me to be attractive.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I construed that that was the line the noble Baroness was taking. If I have done her an injustice I shall read Hansard and reflect upon my unkindness to her.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, asked why the National Consumer Council could not do this job. First, it is not empowered to do so; secondly, it is not equipped to do it; thirdly, its responsibilities are not even to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Secretary of State for Health but to the Department of Trade and Industry. All those are inhibiting factors, although I wish to acknowledge what my noble friend Lady Phillips said about the useful work which the National Consumer Council does and will continue to do.
I was grateful for the point of the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that the amendment was good in parts. I hope that the good parts will be sufficiently appealing to him to cause him to support it, if we decide that the amendment should be tested in the Lobbies.
I turn to what the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, had to say. With great deference to the Ministry of Agriculture, it quite hopelessly misjudges the public mood as regards food safety at the present time. In that misjudgment the Ministry is not merely doing itself considerable immediate damage but it also may unwittingly be doing itself major damage, in that the public will begin to ask themselves whether the Ministry is the correct and proper body to discharge all the functions which it has under its wing and has had under its wing for so many years.
I have dealt on and off in a professional way with the Ministry of Agriculture for about 25 years. I have always admired and respected it as a Ministry. I admire the dexterity with which civil servants have been able to ride several horses at one time. However, I feel that in the past two years the public as a whole, no doubt encouraged by the media, have increasingly asked themselves whether this Ministry, which is now so heavily weighted in the direction of producers, is the proper body to speak entirely for consumers. In the face of the many cases we now have of food problems, the public ask themselves whether the Ministry is acting sufficiently promptly, bearing in mind the sharing of responsibility with the Department of Health, to allay the fears which, in my opinion, consumers legitimately have that, although the Ministry may be well intentioned, it does not apply itself with sufficient vigour to the defence of the consumer interest above everything else in this country.
1112
I am told, for example, that in 1988 a Minister admitted in another place that in that year he had met the National Farmers Union 37 times, while he had met consumers only twice in that same year. I accept that the establishment of the consumer panel and the hopes that have been expressed for it in this debate is in itself a response to what has undoubtedly been a legitimate criticism of the Ministry. However, on the basis of the role which was defined for the consumer panel in the ministerial statement of 2nd November, we ask ourselves whether it will have sufficient power and authority, even though it may be chaired by an under-secretary, to do the job which we believe needs urgently to be done and on an ongoing basis as regards food safety.
It was suggested by the noble Baroness that the agency had no executive function and that that was to be welcomed. If the question of its function needs redefinition we would be happy to agree a redefinition of function with the Minister. However, from her general approach to this matter, I gathered that there was no possible hope of the Government discussing at this stage any alternative to that which is in the Bill.
Reference was made to the many advisory committees. There are indeed a large number of advisory committees. Most of them are highly technical in character and are well manned by distinguished scientists from all fields. They give the Minister the technical advice which no doubt he feels is necessary to enable him to discharge his responsibilities under various Acts of Parliament. However, it seems to us that this proposal brings together the main categories who have a vital, distinctive interest in food safety; namely, consumers, broadly defined food producers, food authorities and the Minister, as well as the Secretary of State. We cannot for any reason at all understand why the prospect of a bulletin from the internal committee, which was also established by the Minister on 2nd November, can be expected to allay ongoing public concern. Quite frankly, it would be a miracle if all the problems associated with food safety were to disappear simply by the enactment of this Bill on the one hand and the creation of the internal and highly technical body of civil servants on the other. We do not see that as being a likely result.
We view what we are proposing not as being the establishment of an independent body such as the Food and Drugs Administration in the United States. However, we feel that if we are constantly to meet with a negative response in the light of the undoubted and legitimate concerns of consumers, eventually that may become the solution for which Britain opts. I did not feel that the Minister comprehends the public concern which surrounds this matter. Because of that, and in view of its overriding importance, I feel we must test the opinion of the House on it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I feel that I must return to this point.
Noble Lords: By leave of the House!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe I asked for the leave of the House. In any case I meant

1113
to say that. I cannot agree that the Ministry, in co-operation with the Department of Health, has come forward with this major piece of reforming consumer protection legislation which, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, admitted on Second Reading has been most welcomed —
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the House will excuse me interrupting, I must say that the noble Baroness is entirely out of order.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my noble friend prefaced her remarks by saying, "Before the noble Lord sits down". Surely that is good enough. I have often prefaced my remarks with those words.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 114.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Amherst, E.

Kearton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Blackstone, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos. L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Phillips, B.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Annaly, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Arran, E.

Butterworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bancroft, L.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Belstead, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cockfield, L.

Blatch, B.

Congleton, L.

Blyth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Boardman, L.

Cottesloe, L.

1114

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elibank, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Norrie, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Forbes, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainford, L.

Orkney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Geddes, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Reay, L.

Havers, L.

Renton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Henley, L.

Rodney, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Davids, V.

Hives, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hood, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooper, B.

Savile, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Seebohm, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shannon, E.

Joseph, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Slim, V.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strange, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Layton, L.

Strathspey, L

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Tranmire, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Waldegrave, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Margadale, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

South Africa and Nelson Mandela: Policy
4.3 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question being given in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on government policy towards South Africa following the release of Nelson Mandela. The Answer is as follows:
"We warmly welcome the release of Nelson Mandela. He symbolises the aspirations of millions of South Africans for a non-racial democratic South Africa.
"Since he has become President, Mr. de Klerk has transformed the policy of the South African Government. He has initiated a series of steps, including the commitment to abolish much of the remains of so-called petty apartheid, the unbanning of political organisations and now the release of Nelson Mandela. All these steps have been demanded time and again by the British

1115
Government, by the international community and by this House. Taken together they create a completely new climate in South Africa —a climate in which dialogue can begin about the massive task of dismantling apartheid peacefully. This new climate presents a decisive challenge to those, black and white, who wish to maintain the old orthodoxies of confrontation.
"We urge the ANC, the PAC, the Inkatha Movement, the various white parties and all other political organisations in South Africa to rise to this challenge, end violence and enter negotiations.
"It is vital to send a signal to the white community that President de Klerk's steps will find a response from the international community. That is why the British Government believe that it makes sense to stop discouraging investment and tourism in South Africa."
That concludes the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question in another place. We most warmly welcome the release of Mr. Nelson Mandela. It is both a joy and a relief to us all. Mr. Mandela re-enters the public life of his country after more than 27 years of captivity and takes his place as the undoubted leader of the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa.
We must also welcome President de Klerk's constructive action in securing Mr. Mandela's release and in lifting the ban on the ANC. We note that Mr. Mandela in his speech yesterday called Mr. de Klerk a man of integrity.
We further welcome Mr. Mandela's words that his objective is a democratic, free and multi-racial society. We welcome his commitment to peaceful solutions.
It is clear, however, that the next few weeks and months are critical. The structure of apartheid still stands virtually intact. The state of emergency still remains and the prospects of constitutional change and free elections are, to say the least, uncertain at this moment.
In those circumstances can the noble Lord say what constructive action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take? Is he aware that the raising of sanctions at this moment would be totally unhelpful? Is it not the case that the Commonwealth, the European Community and the United States believe that it is premature to withdraw sanctions now? Can the noble Lord say whether any country supports Her Majesty's Government's policy against sanctions and their efficacy?
Bearing in mind that the Community Foreign Ministers meet in Dublin later this month, does the noble Lord not consider it necessary to seek agreement for a united course of action upon which all the governments of the Community can agree? Will he not accept that the withdrawal of sanctions at this time would not achieve the unity which is so necessary now?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question in another place. We too on these Benches would like to welcome sincerely, wholeheartedly and with unqualified relief the release after 27 years of Nelson Mandela, one of the most charismatic, courageous and extraordinary people of our epoch.
I should like to ask the noble Lord to help us in certain respects, much on the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Is he aware that the apartheid state has not yet been dismantled in any way? There is still a state of emergency; the Group Areas Act is still in place; the Population Registration Act is still in place; the secret service police are still active.
Does the noble Lord not agree that once more the Prime Minister is isolating this country from the rest of the world and from our friends? Can he explain the curious discrepancy between her attitude towards South Africa and her attitude towards countries in Eastern Europe? Countries in Eastern Europe are rushing towards democracy, are to hold elections on a fair and free basis, have disbanded their secret police and are entering a new phase. In response to those developments the Prime Minister urges caution. She tells us that we must be careful and wait to see what emerges. She says that our armaments must be increased next year. Yet, when the secret police are still in place in South Africa and we still await free elections and democratic politics there, she tells us that we should remove the pressures which can be argued to have brought about the changes that we all welcome.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Bonham-Carter, for their remarks. We believe that the time is now right to start to consider lifting some of the measures imposed by the international community. We shall discuss the issue with our Community partners. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked whether any other countries supported us in that regard. Other governments have indicated that they believe the time is fast approaching when it would be right to reconsider sanctions. It is therefore a matter which we shall discuss with our Community partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, reminded us that apartheid has not been dismantled and that the state of emergency, among other things, is still in place. We urge the South African Government to lift the state of emergency as soon as possible. We hope that it will eventually be possible for apartheid to be dismantled completely.
4.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I believe that I speak on behalf of all the Churches in this country in expressing our rejoicing that Nelson Mandela is free. I am thankful for President de Klerk's courage and statesmanship. It is an astonishing step forward which we could not have imagined a year ago. I hope that the next step may be the complete lifting of the state of emergency and the putting in place of a negotiating framework

1117
as outlined by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons' Group.
Together with my brother in Liverpool, Archbishop Worlock, I went to South Africa last May for three weeks. We spent a good time in more than a dozen townships. We saw the main pillars of grand apartheid firmly and oppressively in place. At the same time one of the abiding memories that we brought away was the amazing forgivingness of black people and their longing for a united, democratic South Africa.
Main-line Church leaders and community leaders whom we met repeatedly said to us, "Please tell them in England to keep up the pressures from outside". They know that they have to work out matters within South Africa, but they also know the heavy pressures that there will be on President de Klerk from those who want to keep white dominance wherever possible. Last night Mr. Mandela asked the international community to keep up the isolation of the apartheid regime until there is root and branch change to allow all South Africans to share fully in their country's future. As we praise him, should we not listen to what he says? We continue to pray for South Africa in this moment of hope and courageous risk.
Lord Reay: My Lords, in reply to the right reverend Prelate, perhaps I may say that we believe that the urgent need now is for negotiations to get under way. President de Klerk has gone a long way towards making that possible and has promised to do more. I can only repeat what I said in my original reply; namely, that we believe that it is extremely important to send a signal to the white community that the steps taken by President de Klerk will find a reply from the international community. That is the basis of our position.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, adverting to what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter referred to as a discrepancy, is not the difference between what is going on in Eastern Europe and what has just happened in southern Africa that President Gorbachev's term of office has lasted for five years and that Mr. de Klerk's has lasted for about one year? Is not the inconsistency between those who wish to praise and apply the carrot to Mr. Gorbachev and the stick and complaint to Mr. de Klerk? Is it not the truth of the matter that both are engaged on what is one of the most difficult and perhaps dangerous exercises in the whole of international politics; namely, to unscramble a highly authoritarian regime based on a false ideology? Should not both be given our wholehearted support?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords,—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords,—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, could not see behind him, but the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, tried to speak before the noble Lord rose to his feet.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Perhaps I should declare a personal interest. As some noble Lords know, I worked with Nelson Mandela, Waller Sisulu and Oliver Tambo in the 1950s and, for my pains, I was banned from South Africa 31 years ago. That ban remains today. It is therefore with a great deal of personal poignancy that I viewed the release of Nelson Mandela from one prison yesterday. But Nelson Mandela has not been freed. He has been released from one prison and he enters another. In South Africa —the South Africa that he has entered today —he is not free to live where he wishes; he has no vote and his children and grandchildren will go to schools designated by the South African state.
In his Statement the noble Lord spoke about sending a signal to the white community. What about the black community, which is four times as large? Yes —we should send a signal to the white community. Some of us have sent signals to the white community for many years in the sanctions and boycotts which have been effective. Apparently, it is only the British Prime Minister who believes that they have not played a major part in the recent loosening of the South African white regime's policies. Even President de Klerk has admitted that the economic pressures of sanctions have been a major factor in changing the situation. What signal are the British Government sending to the black people who have now been without the vote for 200 years? What signal are they sending to the black people who still live under the Group Areas Act and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said under the Population Registration Act and who still live under the state of emergency? What signal are the British Government sending to them?
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool said, there are in South Africa many strong forces who will use every means, including sabotage and possibly murder, to change the lines laid down by President de Klerk. I salute him for his courage, at the moment in words, but, as Nelson Mandela said last night, we are still waiting for actions.
Is it not the case that the effect of removing sanctions tomorrow would be to sabotage the pressure from black Africans and white South Africans who would like to see President de Klerk's words put into action and a genuine non-racial democratic society created in that unhappy country? Until those actions to remove discrimination from South Africa are seen to be irreversible, sanctions should be kept as a pressure on the South African white community to end the discrimination that has existed for 200 years between white and black. Is that not the response that should be made to the release of Nelson Mandela after his 27 years of martrydom? Is that not the message that the British Government should be sending to the people of South Africa, white and black alike?
Lord Reay: My Lords, President de Klerk has met virtually all the demands which EC Ministers called for when imposing restrictive measures in 1986? the release of political prisoners, the unbanning of political organisations and the lifting of the state of emergency. We believe that the bold and courageous steps which have been taken by President de Klerk to end apartheid require a response and that this is a response which can be appreciated by all in South Africa.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not worth bearing in mind, when speaking about sanctions, that Zambian Airlines now advertise that it is the only airline that flies direct from New York to South Africa, this in spite of President Kaunda urging for an increase in sanctions? Is it not true that the Indians import vast quantities of diamonds from South Africa through companies in Mauritius? Is there not an immense amount of hypocrisy and humbug involved in the entire sanctions issue? Is it not the case that in order to produce a much more free and liberal government, the South African Government will need the help of everyone, black and white?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that the future of South Africa will not be determined by sanctions but by what happens in that country. In that respect we hope to see the development of a dialogue and the abandonment of violence.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government use what influence they have with President de Klerk to see that the police force in South Africa is brought under control? The evidence of brutality and the scenes that have been witnessed may lead one to feel that no black person could believe that negotiations would be effective while this kind of thing continues. Will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to use her influence in that direction?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says and I will take it back to my right honourable friend.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we should all be delighted if a stable, prosperous, liberal, incorrupt, non-racial, multi-party democracy could be created in South Africa. Would the noble Lord acknowledge, however, that such a democracy is an extremely rare phenomenon on the African continent and that we should not therefore entertain excessive expectations? Secondly, would the noble Lord agree that African tribal minorities and Asian and European minorities have fared extremely badly on the African continent over the past few decades? Despite the undoubted good faith of Mr. Mandela, is it not the case therefore that minorities have every reason for apprehension, however groundless their fears may be considered to be by people sitting comfortably, thousands of miles away?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we utterly condemn apartheid. It has always been the objective of Her Majesty's Government to bring about the end of
1120
apartheid and we have repeatedly made that objective clear to the South African Government and to Mr. de Klerk. We believe that sanctions would worsen the situation. Undoubtedly the task ahead is massive, but we hope that that objective will acquire the support of all reasonable people.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am sure that the support that President de Klerk has received from all sides of this House and another place will encourage him to continue the process of bringing real democracy to South Africa. A comparison cannot be made between what has been going on in central Europe and South Africa. No one can recognise a communist by the colour of his skin. The "offence" of millions of human beings in South Africa is not that they are communists or liberals, but that in some terrific scheme of the Almighty they were given a different skin pigmentation to that of most people in this House and another place. That must no longer be a crime; otherwise our democracy becomes a total farce.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I repeat, we utterly condemn apartheid.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I should like to clarify one point. The noble Lord stated that a number of governments feel that the time is coming when sanctions can be abandoned. Could the noble Lord answer the question that has been put to him from both Front Benches? Does any other government agree with the British Government that the time has now come when sanctions should be abandoned?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that the Dutch Government, the United States Administration and the Australian Prime Minister have indicated that the time is fast approaching when it would be right to reconsider the question of sanctions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to praise the courage of Mr. De Klerk in doing what he has done. However, I think that we should also note the dignity and restraint of the South African black leaders and their followers. Does it not behove all of us, especially the Government, who should be taking the lead, to ensure that their restraint and diplomacy is matched by every other country, particularly the Commonwealth?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I stated in my original answer, we urge all political organisations in South Africa to rise to the immense challenge of ending violence and to enter into negotiations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, whilst President Bush, the Prime Minister of Holland and Mr. Hawke of Australia have welcomed the action of President de Klerk, none of them have said that their governments are proposing to lift sanctions now.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that the time has come to consider lifting some of the measures that have been imposed by the international community. We propose to discuss this matter further with our partners.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question? Is there any other country which believes that now is the time to lift any sanctions?
Lord Reay: My Lords, one of the purposes of the discussions that we are having with our partners is to discover their position.

Electricity Privatisation
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about electricity privatisation, the publication of the draft regulatory licences for the industry and the non-fossil fuel obligation.
"Good progress continues to be made in preparing the electricity supply industry for vesting on 31st March. The House will be aware that the Second Commencement Order under the Electricity Act 1989 was made at the end of January.
"Today I am taking another important step towards completing the restructuring of the industry. I have today made available to the House copies of revised drafts of the licences to be issued to the successors of the CEGB and area electricity boards, which were initially published on 10th January 1989. The revised drafts take account of commitments made during the passage of the Electricity Act and consultations since the original drafts were published.
"Other licensees will receive licences based on these drafts but tailored to their particular circumstances. Regulations are being laid today setting out how to apply for a licence and the details of the application procedure. The exemption order identifying those who will not require a licence is also being tabled today.
"The principal changes in the draft licences published today are in the conditions dealing with price control, security of supply and the transition to a competitive market. The revised conditions are explained in detail in the explanatory notes that accompany the licences.
"The average price for all customers supplied by the public electricity supply companies will be controlled by an RPI-x+y formula, where y represents the actual costs to the companies of purchasing the electricity supplied. Customers taking more than 1 megawatt will benefit from the competition in supply that will be introduced by privatisation. I expect many of them to enjoy price reductions. It may take some time for customers to gain experience of the market and negotiate terms. I have therefore sought an undertaking from the industry that it will use its best endeavours to offer a one-year real price freeze to customers taking more than 1 megawatt.
1122
"Customers taking less than 1 megawatt will benefit from an addition to the price control. Although the industry has yet to propose a final figure, I see no reason why the average price to these customers should rise by much more than the current rate of inflation this year. The price control should prevent any further real increase before the end of March 1993. Indeed the public electricity supply companies could well be able to offer some real price reductions to these customers in this period.
"I believe that the combination of these controls will be more effective than the yardstick price control proposed in the original draft licences. Altogether I do not expect the average price for all customers to rise in real terms this year.
"All of these expectations on prices allow for the effect of the fossil fuel levy, which I intend to set for 1990–91 at a rate of 10.6 per cent. on the value of final sales. I expect the rate of levy to decline significantly over the next eight years. I shall shortly be laying the regulations under which the levy will be established and collected.
"I also intend to lay at the same time an order setting the initial non-fossil fuel obligation for the public electricity supply companies. The intention of the obligation is not only to ensure that existing and committed nuclear plant in England and Wales is contracted for; it is also to encourage the development of commercial renewable energy sources. Around 300 projects have been put forward to the area boards in response to this policy. The Government have been extremely encouraged by this response and wish to ensure a full contribution from renewables to the NFFO. Given the size of the response, it has not been possible to assess all these projects fully by the time the initial order needs to be made.
"Accordingly, the initial order will cover nuclear capacity only. I intend to allow a further two months for the area boards to complete their negotiations with renewable operators and I shall then lay a second order relating specifically to renewables. This will ensure that renewables projects can be assessed fairly and a proper contribution obtained.
"The initial order will, therefore, amount to some 8,000 megawatts or so in total for the period 1990–91 to 1997–98. As I told the House on 9th November, the Government will review the prospects for nuclear power in 1994. Decisions about the level of the obligation beyond 1998 will be taken then.
"Returning to the licences, the conditions on security of supply have been amended to ensure that all suppliers meet the current standards of security except where their customers choose otherwise. Suppliers may meet this condition by becoming members of the new electricity trading pool that is being established, since the price of electricity in the pool will include a capacity charge that reflects the value of secure supply to customers. Suppliers will have economic incentives to ensure that sufficient generating plant is available. I believe that this approach

1123
will provide secure supplies more effectively than central planning by a monopoly supplier.
"As for competition in supply, the licences now incorporate provisions to implement the decisions announced on 29th September 1989. These provided for an orderly and stable transition to a fully competitive market by allowing other suppliers to compete with the area supply companies for customers taking more than 1 megawatt at the outset, for customers taking more than 100 kilowatts after four years and for all customers after eight years.
"The licences, therefore, contain corresponding transitional constraints on the premises which such competitors can supply. If they apply for licences to supply customers falling within these restrictions, I will look to the Director General of Electricity Supply to advise me on whether such licences should be issued.
"While I shall be disposed to act in accordance with the restrictions announced on 29th September, I accept that I shall need to exercise discretion to deal with particular circumstances that already exist or may arise. These cases will be considered on their merits. The licences also contain transitional limits on the extent to which National Power and PowerGen can engage in direct sales to enable competition in supply and new supply arrangements to develop.
"The arrangements that I have set out today mark the successful achievement of another stage in this privatisation. When the new companies are vested on 31st March, this country will have the most competitive electricity industry in the world. I know that those in the industry are keen to be privatised to respond to the new challenges and to rid themselves of the dead hand of the public sector. I am also sure that the public will welcome the benefits of competition and will seize the opportunity to invest in those companies."
That concludes the Statement.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating a Statement made in another place which was indeed widely advertised in the weekend press. Like many statements on electricity privatisation emerging from the Department of Energy, this Statement raises a further host of questions and does not take us a great deal further. I shall try to marshal my questions for the benefit of your Lordships because there are many, under several headings. I start first with the price increases that the Secretary of State envisages.
By indicating that the Secretary of State is prepared to accept price increases around the rate of inflation, above the rate of inflation or slightly above the rate of inflation, or price increases which are not real price increases —in other words, spot on the rate of inflation —is he not encouraging inflation psychology? After all, the CEGB has had the advantage of a coal price agreement with British Coal and its costs will be held down. Why then does it need those price increases at all? Why is the
1124
Secretary of State encouraging inflation merely in order, as we believe, to provide a return so that he can float off this industry to the public?
Secondly, on the price control formula, it appears from what the noble Viscount has said that it has now changed. He was not on the Government Front Bench when we discussed that point at considerable length when the Electricity Bill was before the House. We from this side tried to put the price formula that was then advertised by the Government into a schedule of the Bill. We were refused that. I now understand perfectly well why we were refused —because the Government continued to make up the whole thing as they went along.
We now have a new version. We have something called y, which is the cost of electricity to the public electricity suppliers. What will the contracts between the successors to the area boards and the generators be about? What term will they have? How will the pooling work? How will the spot market work? How will the settlements work? Finally, how on earth will the electricity consumer be able to determine whether his price is a fair one? He will have no idea, any more than any of us will, as to how that price is calculated.
Thirdly, on the security of supply, the Act is quite clear on the subject: the area boards or their successors have a responsibility to supply any reasonable request for electricity supply in their authorised areas. In the Statement it now appears that they "may" enter into arrangements for pooling in order to ensure continuity of supply in their authorised areas. What happens if they do not choose to enter into such arrangements? Who do we sue when the lights go out? Will it be the successors to the area boards? Who will it be?
As regards the nuclear levy, or the non-fossil-fuel obligation, we understand that this will be about 10·6 per cent., and declining. Does that tell us that the cost of nuclear energy is approximately 40 per cent. higher than the cost of fossil-fuel-generated electricity? Is it not the case that the levy is only set as high as that in order that nuclear-generated electricity should be the baseload of the system rather than competing with other sources? Does the nuclear levy apply to the French interconnector or the Scottish interconnector?
Why are we no further on the question of renewables? We had assurances in this House about the share of renewables in the non-fossil-fuel obligation. The noble Viscount said there is no share at the moment. We do not know what that can possibly be. Where are we on renewables?
Turning to the licences, why is there nothing in the licences and nothing in the Statement about the encouragement of energy efficiency? That was one of the great debates that we had throughout the passage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. We thought the Government had conceded in principle that there would be things in the licences which would not only just promote energy efficiency but would actively promote it and make sure that public electricity suppliers ensured that energy in their authorised areas was used as efficiently as possible. There is nothing here to give us any encouragement.

1125
There are many more questions which come out of this Statement. We are only a quarter of the way towards being able to write a prospectus for the public electricity suppliers. The Department of Energy really must do much, much better than this if it is to get a flotation of public electricity suppliers away in November. The hollow laugh that one could say greets the expression that the arrangements mark the successful achievement of another stage in this privatisation is just an echo of the other hollow laughs that there have been when whoever it may be comes forward to the Government Dispatch Box and says, "We've got another marvellous wheeze." They are making the whole thing up as they go along. The aeroplane is not even on the end of the runway yet and if it belly-flops, as it will, the Government have only themselves to blame.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. I must say that a Statement which is 13 pages long and which reached us less than half an hour before we had to comment on it makes considerably difficult the proper operation of the task of this House in commenting on Statements of this kind. The length and complexity of the Statement inevitably means that we almost launch into a debate on it, which I understood from comments made earlier today is exactly what we are not supposed to do in regard to Statements. So the whole approach taken in regard to this Statement is very much open to question, considering the method we now adopt.
In order not to prolong the debate, I would echo many of the points that have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I shall only add a few additional or reinforcing questions. I see that on the new pricing arrangements we have a formula of RPI minus x plus y. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has asked what y is.y I will complement that question by asking what x is. It would be very nice if we could know what the whole of the formula really means, and not be blinded by algebra.
On pricing, I should like to make the comment that later on the same page, when talking about what customers can expect, the Statement says:
"I [the Secretary of State] expect many of them to enjoy price reductions."
I ask: how many? Will it be 55 per cent. or some other percentage? On what is that cheerful expectation based? Could the noble Viscount tell us why many of them should expect to enjoy reductions?
I should also like to ask him a question about renewables. There is a deep bow made here to renewables and reference is made to how delighted the Secretary of State has been at the very large number of proposals that have been put forward. Can we take it, as a result of this energy in the field of renewables, that the Government will give very serious consideration to increasing the amount of resources allowed for the development of renewables? I am sure the whole House would agree
1126
that if we could get really good renewables, about which there has been very considerable scepticism —a scepticism which I have shared on many occasions —the whole position regarding energy in the country would be greatly changed. What are the Government, in concrete terms, proposing to do to encourage the enthusiasm for renewables which is reported in this Statement?
I should like to ask also about security of supply, of which a great deal is made. Are we right in understanding, although it is not really in the Statement, that there is an arrangement with Scottish producers and also with French producers for ensuring certainty of supply? What are these arrangements? To what extent are they reliable and are we taking any line regarding the fact that the great mass of electricity we shall draw from France, if we do draw from France, will be nuclear generated?
Also, we understood that large producers would be able to get a substantial reduction. It seems from the Statement that there is to be a pause in the case of large production going direct to the generators. Am I right in interpreting that as meaning that there is to be a pause of a year before it will be possible to go direct to the generators? Obviously it would save them a considerable amount if they could do it because it would cut out one profit level and it would also mean that they would not have to bear their share of the nuclear contribution. There are many other points one could raise, but that would turn this into a debate.
My final question is, I suppose, a rhetorical one. In view of the high cost of nuclear power which this Statement supports, do the Government really think it is sensible to go on with Sizewell B?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for their guarded welcome to this Statement. I would say that the progress of privatisation is running on speed, and everything that is being done according to plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams asked me some questions and I shall do my best, in a limited time, to answer them. He suggested that the prices, now that the coal contracts have been secured, should not be allowed to rise at all. Certainly the Statement says that prices will only rise at the rate of, or just about the rate of, inflation. I should like to remind the noble Lord that prices are lower in real terms that they were five years ago. It is natural that prices should have risen over the last two years as the surplus of capacity in the system has declined. The industry should be able to finance new investment at current price levels, and the returns are not excessive.
Regarding security of supply, about which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked, it is very much the pool price that will contain a capacity charge that will ensure that sufficient power stations are built to ensure security to current standards. Competition will help to ensure that they are built at the lowest cost. Licence conditions on all suppliers will enshrine the current standards of security. They will also ensure that suppliers provide sufficient information to the director general to enable him to

1127
take a view on the level of security provided. If he believes that levels of security must be increased, he can seek modifications to the licence conditions by agreement or by reference to the MMC.
The noble Lord also asked me about pooling and the operation of a pool. Generating companies will sell all the energy output of their stations into the pool, from where supply companies will buy the required amounts of energy to satisfy their customers' demand. Every day each generating company will bid its price for each of its generating sets for the following day. On the basis of these offer prices the National Grid Company will schedule and dispatch all generating sets so as to meet demand at least cost.
The noble Lord also asked me about the levy and the non-fossil fuel obligation. He also inquired about why the renewables had not been included so far. As the Statement said, there are a number of projects, 300 in all, which have not had time to be assessed in order to be included in today's Statement. The non-fossil fuel obligation will include the building of Sizewell B but no further nuclear stations. As has been reported, the nuclear option will be reviewed in 1994. The French connector will not be subject to the non-fossil fuel obligation; nor will it be subject to the levy.
The levy is not additional money required to run the nuclear stations. The cost of electricity at the moment includes the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power. The levy makes it much more transparent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me what the x factor was in the price formula that I read out. The x factors in the licence control various parts of the final price. One will limit increases in the grid companies' transmission charges; others will limit increases in the area boards' distribution charges and supply margins. It is a fairly technical and complicated subject. I could go into it in more detail but perhaps it would not be right at the moment.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord and I would not be much the wiser!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness also asked me whether the generators could supply direct during the current phase, during the first year. The answer is yes. They are allowed to supply direct to a certain percentage of the market which will not be more than 15 per cent. in any one individual supply area. I hope that I have dealt with all the points.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend pleasantly aware that no one will envy him the task of explaining the Government's plan to your Lordships' House? He enjoys a measure of protection both from the rules which were referred to earlier this afternoon which forbid debate now and by virtue of the complexity of the plan which is quite impossible to digest simply by hearing it once. However, I should like to ask him two questions. First, he claims that everything that has been done
1128
is being done according to plan. Would he please seek an early opportunity to inform the House what that plan is, with a reasonable statement as to the time element in it? Secondly, how do the Government justify the retention of the fossil fuel levy —it was an idea originally introduced in order to protect those private owners of nuclear power stations—without doing anything so far as one knows in the field of energy saving? Although my noble friend did not have the conduct of the Bill, does he not recall that a very large element in the debate on the Bill expressed disappointment at the fact that the Government did not give adequate emphasis to this extremely important factor?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that he should not confuse a radical change for the electricity industry with the muddle as he sees it. The electricity industry is going through a radical change. It is certainly not as he describes it.
I have suggested in the Statement that we are on target for vesting on 31st March. That will continue and that date will be met. As my noble friend knows, it is intended that the sale of the public electricity industry's suppliers will be later on in the autumn of this year and the generators in the first half of next year.
On the fossil fuel levy and why we need to continue with it, it has always been accepted that nuclear costs are higher than fossil fuel costs. The fossil fuel levy evens out the amount of money between the two generating systems. Also the nuclear industry is required so that we have a diversity and security of supply. Also I do not think that we should neglect the environmental benefits that we have from the nuclear industry.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the words "competition", "competitive" and so on are mentioned several times in the Statement. I have a mile of line to my farm supplied by the present electricity board. I presume that it will be taken over. That will be the line from which I obtain my supply. If I quarrel with the company, does the noble Viscount suggest that there is someone competitive enough to build another mile of line to supply me with electricity? People in many outlying areas are worred about the competition. Can the Minister give us some idea what will happen if we demand another supply?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I understand it, the transmission lines remain as a natural monopoly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that the arrangements that he set out today mark the successful achievement of another stage in the privatisation. If he will forgive some of us, we do not quite see it that way. So far the privatisation has been fraught with danger, to the extent that part of the electricity supply industry has had to be taken out of the privatisation programme. Will he tell the House, and certainly tell me, who in the industry, other than senior officials of the area boards, is keen to be privatised and to respond to these new challenges to which he refers? So far as I

1129
know, the people working in the electricity supply industry simply do not want to be privatised. They have not yet become convinced of the benefits of the industry being privatised, and nor have the consumers.
The noble Viscount referred to the dead hand of the public sector being removed from the electricity industry. Does he not appreciate and agree that a large part of the industry is being retained in the public sector —that is the nuclear part —simply and soley because the private sector is unable to make a profit out of it? Is it the case that the public sector must incur all the losses and the private sector can enjoy all the profits?
Since the nuclear industry is to remain in the public sector, can the Minister say what on earth is the benefit gained from retaining the fossil fuel levy? It does not appear to be reasonable or competent to impose such a levy, bearing in mind that the nuclear industry is to be kept in public hands.
Can the noble Viscount also answer some of the questions which have been asked? For example, can he reply to my noble friend who asked who can be sued if the lights go out? The public are entitled to know the answer. Will he also say exactly who are the consumers who will enjoy reductions in the price of electricity? That question was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Finally, what encouragement will be given to the electricity supply industry to institute the least-cost option?
The noble Baroness asked the Minister about Sizewell. There is no question that it is possible for the new electricity area boards to save the public a good deal in capital cost and in the cost of elecricity by bringing forward ideas and projects which do not involve the building of new power stations but, instead, the considerable saving of electricity to the benefit of us all and the greenhouse effect.
5 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked a number of questions, including the question: why should the nuclear industry be removed? That was dealt with on a previous occasion. As I have already explained, it was the view of the proposed purchasers of the industry, who required a high rate of return in order to undertake all the unknown decommissioning costs which also had to be sold. Nuclear electricity will provide a return on its investments appropriate to the public sector. In order to do so the cost of generating nuclear electricity is higher than that from fossil fuels. Part of the reason is because the damage to the environment caused by fossil fuel generation is not costed in the price of electricity. The emissions of CO2, the global warming, is not costed. Electricity is not recovering the cost of that in order to safeguard our atmosphere. If that were to be done, no doubt it would be even more expensive than nuclear electricity —
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if that is the case for nuclear, is not the opposite true for renewables? Is it costed when calculating the cost of renewables?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the renewables will form an important part of the supply of electricity. This is being greatly encouraged by the Government, as I have stressed. The difficulty is that there are not enough renewable sources to make an impact on the requirement of electricity for the industry of this country. Our supplies cannot be guaranteed from renewables.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked: who in the industry wants privatisation? I daresay that there are a great number of such people in the industry. I have only to cast my mind back to those who were working for the road transport company and who, when it was privatised, became shareholders. Not only did the industry do well but those people became extremely rich as a result of the shares they had purchased.
The noble Lord also asked: who would have the obligation to supply? That rests with the supply companies and it is part of the licence which they will be granted and which transfers to them the obligation to supply. I also agree that the least-cost option should be fully investigated. However, a difficulty exists because at the moment we need a certain amount of generation which is being undertaken by either fossil fuel or nuclear. Until that is privatised and there is competition we are not in a position to do a great deal about those cost options. Nevertheless, they are options for the future and are most sensible.
I have been on my feet for long enough but, in order to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I wish to point out the importance of completing and Commissioning Sizewell B in order to keep open our PWR option.
Lord Peston: My Lords, there apears to be a frightful mess. Does the Minister agree that Statements made to your Lordships' House should contain material which your average Lordship can understand rather than say that it is all very difficult —although it is all very difficult? In particular, I refer to the formula set out on page 4, which I am bound to say makes no sense to me whatever. I should like to ask the Minister questions about that. However, if he cannot answer them today perhaps he will ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue a further Statement so that we can understand the situation.
Is it not the case that in an industry such as electricity, which is subject to technical advance, we would normally expect the price of the product to fall in real terms? It is a counsel of despair to suggest that its real-terms price should be constant. We undoubtedly expect the relative price of electricity to fall compared with prices in general. If that is not the case one would like to know why.
As regards the RPI minus x plus y formula, is there not an element of double counting? The RPI refers to prices in general. I had thought that x was deducted to allow generally for productivity improvements in the industry indicating that the real price will fall. That appeared to me to be the point of the RPI minus x formula. By adding again y is one not counting the inflation rate for a second time? Does not something appear to be sadly wrong

1131
with the formula? In due course will the noble Viscount tell us what the formula means?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will be grateful to know that the price control is designed to keep prices constant during the years that I have mentioned in order that opportunities will exist for competition which could bring them down. The price formula RPI is not a constant figure but a percentage figure. Therefore y is an important element and it is the pass-through costs.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the answer which the noble Viscount gave to my noble friend Lord Stoddart seems to follow very peculiar logic. He appeared to be saying that although nuclear energy could not make sufficient profit in private hands to justify the City putting its money into it, in public hands it would make sufficient profit. How will that come about? Will that not come about by double taxation; that is, by the use of taxpayers' money twice? Will it not come about through the non-fossil fuel levy plus higher prices?
The noble Viscount has not answered the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. He said that we must continue with Sizewell B. Why? Would it not lower the cost of electricity if Sizewell B were closed down now and the extra costs not incurred?
When he talks about the environment, has he ever heard of what will happen to nuclear waste? Is that not an environmental matter, or does he neglect that? In the section in which he talked about non-fossil fuel obligation, he did not say what will be the proportions between nuclear energy and renewables. There is a nice bland statement at the end of that page which states that the Government wish to ensure a full contribution from renewables. What will be the contribution, and what will be the proportions within that non-fossil fuel obligation between nuclear energy and renewables?
Again, the noble Viscount has not answered the question asked originally by the noble Baroness and also by my noble friend Lord Williams. Where does energy efficiency come into this Statement? Why is that not included in the licences? Why is energy efficiency not calculated in the whole of the calculation for the production of electricity?
This is a loose Statement trying to cover up the failure of the Government in their privatisation policy. Again, they are trying to draw a veil of respectability over the nuclear section of energy, whereas it has been clearly shown that serious energy efficiency is far more cost effective and environmentally friendly than nuclear energy can ever be.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, this Statement is one of a progression of Statements bringing into being electricity privatisation. As I explained earlier, we are on course for that.
Trying to privatise the nuclear section ran into difficulties in the City because of the expected return which the City would wish to make on its money
1132
by selling the nuclear industry into private hands, because of the unknown, unquantifiable costs of decommissioning and also the higher rate of return required by City investors.
As has been made clear in the past, the Government fix a different rate of return for the public sector, whose appreciation and idea of the decommissioning costs may not be the same. They certainly have their ideas, which they have put into their accounts.
I cannot repeat yet again why we require Sizewell B and why we need to keep open the PWR option. I have said it on a number of occasions; namely, for diversity and security of supply, to make sure that the nuclear option remains and that the PWR station is built and Commissioned so that we can learn from that technology.
The non-fossil fuel obligation which I mentioned in the Statement, the eight gigawatts, refers basically to the nuclear part, and the Statement goes on to say that there will be another tranche of non-fossil fuel obligation announced to meet the renewables. However, the department requires another two months to assess the value of the 300 projects at which it is at present looking.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords—
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but only two hours ago the House agreed that 20 minutes should be the time allotted to a Statement after the two Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have been answered. I am afraid that the noble Lord has fallen foul of that agreement today.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
5.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 5 [Food authorities and authorised officers]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) For the purpose of facilitating and developing the exercise of functions conferred on food authorities by this section, the relevant Minister or Secretary of State shall, after consultation with organisations representative of food authorities, lay before Parliament a report on the cost of any additional functions conferred in the first three years of operation of this Act, together with an estimate of the likely cost of functions to be exercised by such authorities over the succeeding three years")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 returns to an issue which we explored in Committee. We then sought and won an assurance from the Minister that the £30 million made available to local authorities in the forthcoming year is to be genuine additional money which will not be clawed back in other ways through the local government finance system. That was a very welcome assurance which we accepted.
This amendment concentrates on the likely developing cost to local authorities as food authorities in the future. Again, that subject was

1133
touched on in Committee. Evidence is accumulating within local government that the likely implementation costs of food safety will be substantial and are likely to develop and increase in future years.
A further concern which has been put to us is the basis of the distribution of the finance which is to be made available. One possible basis which the Government may put forward is that of population. However, it is argued that needs as between authorities will be dependent on a different set of variables in the case of this function. The numbers of restaurants, shopping centres, food producers and other sites requiring food and safety inspection will be the relevant determinants of the expenditure of a given authority. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out a little more of the Government's thinking as to the basis of the distribution of this money.
Amendment No. 66 deals with the provision for the public analyst of each local authority of the facility of laboratories, analysis and inspection. The amendment asks the Secretary of State to consult the local authority associations before the onset of the financial year as to the likely cost of adequate laboratory facilities or access to them.
The purpose of the amendment is to secure that sufficient funding will be made available. The public analyst provides the professional analytical function on which prosecutions and other forms of action will rest. The provision of such facilities is clearly crucial to the maintenance and expansion of the regulatory system if public confidence in the authority of the analysis undertaken is to be retained. This we all agree is so important. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government's thinking in that area. Perhaps she will feel able to give a commitment that if any deficiency in laboratory facilities is identified in the new structure set out in Clause 27, which states that each authority must appoint one or more persons as a public analyst on its behalf, then resources will be made available in future years as the regulatory system emanating from the Bill is developed. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we have been over similar ground in Committee. As I said then, the Government have already held consultations with organisations representing local authorities to discuss the likely cost of carrying out the new tasks which this Bill introduces.
I also announced that we intended to extend the provision for statutory consultation on the regulation-making powers which may have financial consequences for enforcement authorities. We have now tabled an amendment to that effect to which your Lordships agreed in our earlier debate on Clause 1. Before Ministers can make an order allocating or changing the functions of food authorities, they will have to consult organisations representing those likely to be affected.
We certainly expect local authority associations to comment on the need for, the shape and the financial
1134
implications of, any proposals to alter their duties and we would listen to their views. That perhaps takes in the point about laboratories. Moreover, the Government already hold extensive discussions with local authority associations about their spending, culminating in an annual meeting between local authority associations and Ministers. Food authorities will be free to make their normal representations in the context of the revenue support grant and to take the cost of the Bill into account.
For these reasons I still do not believe that it is appropriate to set down a formal requirement as noble Lords propose. I do not believe it adds anything useful to existing arrangements. Local authorities have the duty to enforce food law under Clause 6(3). There will be codes of practice to assist them in "prioritising" their work, but ultimately we must have a system which leaves it to them to allocate resources, both from central government and locally raised, in the right way for their area.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her reply. However, it did not go as far as we hoped. Incidentally, we also heard the word "prioritising" in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and we did not like it then, either.
Consultations are obviously important and we are very pleased that there has been an extended provision. It is, however, the government reaction to consultation which is important. The concern of the local authorities clearly is whether the money will be made available. I shall read carefully what the Minister said and, in the light of her remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 33, after ("any") insert ("suitably qualified").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, by Amendment No. 16, I sought to ensure that an authorised person should be an officer of the authority so that he could definitely be said to be under its jurisdiction and under its discipline. When replying to that my noble friend the Minister said that she wanted flexibility to be able to have expertise which is not in-house. My amendment today seeks to make the expertise an invariable part of any officer of the authority, whether he be from outside or inside. It refers to any "suitably qualified" person.
My noble friend may say that that is covered by the last three lines of subsection (6). However, that states:
"but if regulations made by the Ministers so provide, no person shall be so authorised unless he has such qualifications".
That gives the Minister the opportunity not to make regulations. It seems strange that we can have an authorised officer in this connection who is not suitably qualified; it seems to me that they must be qualified for the sorts of functions which they are required to perform under the terms of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will find it possible to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very happy to support this amendment. However worthy the

1135
motives, additional bureaucratic powers should be conferred very sparingly and then only upon a limited number of suitably qualified people.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment. It is the fashion nowadays to appoint almost anybody to a position regardless of whether he is qualified. If one is to have an authority which is of some importance and of some real authority, such as we are considering, then surely it is essential that suitably qualified persons should be on it. I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this amendment leaves me in a slight difficulty, in that I am aware that local authorities have great difficulty in obtaining what I describe as "suitably qualified" people. There are just not enough fully qualified environmental health inspectors and public health officers. Whether or not this could be covered by making the suitable qualification referred to at varying levels, I do not know. There may be a need on occasions to be able to delegate the authority to other people and for that reason I have slight doubts about the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, it is useful to have the opportunity to return to this point so that I can explain the Government's view more fully and illustrate it further.
We all recognise, I believe, as shown by our brief discussion, that the task of inspecting a food business is one which calls for a high level of knowledge and expertise. That is why environmental health officers undergo three or four years' intensive study and training before they qualify. Many of those entering training are already graduates. Environmental health officers are therefore trained, responsible professionals. We all recognise that.
However, we also have to recognise that the food industry is becoming increasingly complex and specialised. This is particularly so when we are considering high technology and relatively new processes which enforcement officers will have to inspect. This was the sort of concern that led us to widen the definition of an authorised officer in this clause of the Bill to include people,
"whether or not an officer of the authority".
This will allow the authority to appoint in certain circumstances an expert as an authorised officer to inspect a complex process, without having to rely on the co-operation of the manufacturer when the EHO is in need of such specialist advice.
As my noble friend pointed out in presenting his amendment, the clause, as drafted, also allows the authority to appoint as an authorised officer someone who is less qualified than an environmental health officer or trading standards officer. There are a number of tasks currently undertaken quite satisfactorily by such less qualified people and we believe this should be allowed to continue. For example, there is the need to ascertain whether an improvement notice issued under this Bill has been complied with. It may well be that the improvement
1136
notice specifies simply that the owner of the food business should install a sink in a particular position in his kitchen. It is not really a task which requires a high degree of qualification for someone to visit and check that it has been done. Allowing authorities to utilise such staff for these tasks will enable EHOs to concentrate on the tasks which really do require their skills. Unfortunately, my noble friend's amendment would prevent this.
My noble friend's fears are groundless for two further reasons. If an authority appoints as an authorised officer someone who is not suitably qualified to carry out a particular enforcement function, we must remember that when acting as an authorised officer a person is acting in the name of that authority. It is, therefore, the authority that would carry the can for any mistakes.
There is a further safeguard in the unlikely event that authorities appoint unsuitable people as authorised officers. Clause 5(6) also provides Ministers with powers to make regulations setting out the qualifications required before anyone can be appointed as an authorised officer, either generally or for a specific class of duties.
In view of these reassurances I hope that my noble friend Lord Mottistone will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I think my noble friend has the wrong point. By saying "suitably qualified" I was not seeking to ensure that they were qualified to the same degree as environmental health officers. There is no suggestion of that at all. The amendment says "suitably qualified".
My noble friend quoted an example of giving authority for a sink to be installed in some business, which obviously does not require a highly qualified person. However, it requires somebody who understands what a sink is; what the limitations are and whether it can go in a particular place, because it may be that the water was expected to run up from the drainpipe instead of down, which is the normal gravitational way in which water runs. There has to be someone who understands that kind of thing, and also someone who can read and write in order to post letters so they know into which box to put them.
"Suitably qualified" means exactly what it says. In this particular context it means that local authorities would have to make sure that persons were suitably qualified. The point of that is to make sure that local authorities do not have people who are complete morons and who do not command the respect of the companies with whom they may find themselves dealing. I believe that is a more sensible argument than my noble friend was acknowledging in her reply. However, on this issue it is not worth taking the House to a Division or anything grand like that. It is a matter which my noble friend might wish to take away in order to see whether at Third Reading she might have an amendment of this kind of her own. If not, I reserve the right to return to the charge. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 7 [Rendering food injurious to health]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 22, after ("who") insert ("recklessly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with three subsequent amendments on the groupings list. Amendment No. 13 is a matter separate from the subsequent three amendments, so I shall speak to it quite separately. This is the second attempt to make Clause 7 rather less of a blunderbuss which not only peppers the rogue —and nobody could possibly object to that —but may also inadvertently cause considerable discomfort to food manufacturers who act in good faith and with all reasonable care and diligence.
I give an example to illustrate the necessity for the insertion of the word "recklessly" or something very like it. Let us consider the case of two small confectionery manufacturers neither of which employs more than 10 people, maybe lower than five. Therefore, they are clearly not in a position to employ food analysts or research chemists. In the course of a particular year the world is suddenly faced with a worldwide sugar blight which afflicts both sugar cane and suger beet. In consequence the price of refined sugar skyrockets. What is of even more importance to the manufacturer is that sugar becomes almost impossible to obtain, as do suitable sugar substitutes —not all sugar substitutes would be suitable for their purpose.
The first confectioner (let us call him the good confectioner) learns, luckily, that a very highly regarded and internationally known public company such as ICI, Unilever or Beecham, has just developed a totally new sugar substitute. He immediately places an order with the firm, albeit at a considerable price, in order to keep his business in existence, his employees employed and his customers happy.
In contrast, the second manufacturer is visited by a salesman who says: "Why bother paying through the nose for the new sweetener produced by ICI?" or whoever it may be. "I can get you something which is perfectly adequate for less than a third of the price. It has just been developed in a small laboratory outside Bucharest by one of the late President Ceausescu's many sons-in-law. As it so happens, I have a few cartons in the back of the van. I can let you have them at a pretty good discount, provided it is cash up front and no questions asked".
The second manufacturer finds the offer impossible to resist. Unfortunately, a few weeks later it transpires that 10 per cent. of the customers who bought products from the first confectioner develop an unpleasant rash, not a seriously disabling one, but one that is unpleasant for a few days or weeks. What is far worse is that perhaps one in three of those who bought cakes or sweets made with what might be called the Ceausescu sweetener have developed a really serious malady causing permanent disablement in some cases.
As the clause stands, it would appear that both confectioners would be caught. I believe that many people would feel that to be wrong. After all, the first manufacturer acted in good faith by going to the
1138
trouble of obtaining his ingredients from a reputable company and he has therefore taken all reasonable care. He cannot be expected to know that the ingredients would turn out to be harmful if a major company with all its resources had been unable to ascertain that fact in the first place. On the other hand, the second manufacturer has demonstrably behaved with extreme recklessness. He is clearly a reckless man who deserves prosecution, unlike the other manufacturer. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has clearly given further thought to this matter following the Committee stage debate. However, I still cannot accept his suggestions. Before I explain why perhaps I may make a general point. I was expecting to deal with all these amendments together as they are grouped. My general point concerns all the amendments, but I shall be speaking simply to Amendment No. 13.
Lying behind these amendments and those in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottisi one, I detect the feeling that the main offence provisions of the Bill are too tough. At the same time, if your Lordships will look down the Marshalled List to Clause 8 and Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 and think back to our earlier deliberations, you will see that we are also under pressure to go further. I believe this shows that we have the balance just about right.
We took these points away for consideration. Our conclusion is that some adjustments can usefully be made to the enforcement powers in Clauses 11 and 12. Your Lordships will see that government amendments are tabled to these clauses. However, we feel that Clause 7 is right as it stands.
Amendment No. 13 would mean that a person commits no offence by rendering food injurious to health unless he does so recklessly, though unlike the similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, at Committee stage, this amendment might catch someone who acts negligently. It is quite unacceptable. It would dilute the offence of rendering food injurious to health. Since this offence involves a positive act, it is right that it should be absolute, but with resort to the due diligence defence for a manufacturer whose process produces injurious food despite his taking all reasonable precautions and exercising all due diligence.
If a manufacturer can prove this to the satisfaction of a court it is right that he should be acquitted. However, it is also right that, regardless of whether an offence is shown to have been committed, we should have powers to prevent the defective food from being sold for human consumption. The Bill provides such powers.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. Like most people, I have always been totally opposed to the concept of an absolute offence. I feel as strongly as anyone in this House that the real rogue manufacturer should be prosecuted and no question of it. It is the borderline cases that worry me. However, I am somewhat heartened by the Minister's explanation of the possibility of a due diligence defence. That is slighly reassuring. I believe

1139
that I have done all I can concerning this amendment. If in future reputable and conscientious manufacturers find themselves facing prosecution for something over which they have little or no control they cannot say that they have not been warned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("a person") and insert ("most persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 15 which is consequential and to Amendment No. 18 which is not consequential but is a possible alternative to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. I do not think that this trio of amendments needs much explanation. There is hardly a foodstuff in the world which does not have an adverse effect on somebody somewhere. It may be chocolate, coffee, cow's milk, cheese, wheatflour, nuts, strawberries and so on, to say nothing of common additives, which are perhaps regrettably too common, such as monosodium glutamate. Many noble Lords made much the same point when supporting me in Committee.
These amendments are designed to ensure that a manufacturer does not risk prosecution merely because ingredients which are generally considered to be safe, and which are in actual fact safe for the great majority of people, happen to cause adverse reaction in a small proportion of the population. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord. As we are discussing these amendments together, presumably now is the moment to speak to Amendment No. 18. When I first saw the amendment I could not understand the exact reason for it. I thought it was onerous. But now that I have looked thoroughly into the matter I find that it is exactly the reverse. I thought that 5 per cent. of the population being allergic to a food would be a fairly common occurrence. However, research by the European Commission Scientific Committee for Food showed that 15 per cent. of people are sensitive to something. That 15 per cent. includes those sensitive to housedust and pollens. Only 1·5 per cent. are sensitive to some form of foodstuff and only 0·15 per cent. to food additives. The percentage of people allergic to a food, at 1·5 per cent. of the population, is very small.
A food intolerance data bank is being built up. It is important to appreciate that a manufacturer should not be held liable for an intolerance of food. The word "intolerance" is much wider than "allergy". It could cover someone who has a liverish feeling arising from an intolerance to certain foods. Some people are genuinely intolerant of food as opposed to being allergic to it, which gives different symptoms. The Leatherhead Food Research Association which manages the food intolerance data bank provides a service for state registered dieticians and hospital dieticians. It keeps a list of foods free from one or more ingredients. If someone cannot
1140
tolerate flour he can be supplied with a list of foods which exclude wheat and flour. If a milk product is to be avoided, a similar list would be provided.
It is important to appreciate that, although people have individual physiological conditions which might cause them to be upset by certain foods, it would be very unfair to blame the manufacturer of foods which did not affect the vast majority of people and in which the ingredients were good and wholesome but which had an unfortunate effect on an individual. For that reason I support Amendment No. 18 in principle, although whether or not the terminology is correct I would not be able to judge.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 suggest that injury to health should be defined by reference to most people. This is undesirable. I have vibes whenever I hear the words "most people". The definition we have provided merely assists in the interpretation of a phrase that occurs far more widely than in the present Act. It does not expand on the present interpretation which existing case law indicates to be that,
"food is injurious to health if it affects a substantial portion of the population".
This offers greater protection than would the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. However, it does not mean that every incident where an individual with an odd intolerance is affected by food could be caught. For instance, very young children might risk injury to health from a food. At present a court would be unlikely to hesitate in deciding that they were a significant proportion of the population. However, most people would perhaps be unaffected.
This leads me to the noble Lord's final amendment, Amendment No. 18, which seeks to provide that food is not injurious if its sole risk to health is an allergic reaction,
"to which less than five per cent. of the population are known to be prone".
The implication of existing case law is that foods leading to rare allergies and intolerances are unlikely to be injurious. However, I do not see why we should make the amendment which my noble friend Lord Monson proposes and which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has supported and hence deprive ourselves of the chance to deal with a food that causes a serious or even fatal allergic reaction in 4–9 per cent. of the population. In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for her expert support. I was interested to hear from her that only 1·5 per cent. of the population is allergic to one or other foodstuff. I can only suppose that my family, friends and acquaintances are somewhat atypical because I reckon that at least 10 per cent. of them seem to be allergic in some degree to one food or another. But there it is.
I am reassured by what the noble Baroness said in reply to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. Case law in that respect seems to answer my worries. However, I

1141
cannot agree with her on Amendment No. 18. She said that case law proves that foods which cause allergies are unlikely to be injurious to health. That is not quite so. I know someone who is so allergic to nuts that if one teaspoon of ground almonds were put into a cake, after one bite he would immediately become extremely ill. The noble Baroness has not answered the point fully. The case I have just cited is by no means unique.
I do not intend to press the amendment at the moment. I ask the Government to look again at the points covered by Amendment No. 18. Unlikely though it may be, there are some perfectly ordinary everyday foodstuffs to which some people are so allergic that their reaction to eating them is strong enough to hospitalise them. That is what I am talking about. I am not talking about a rash or anything as relatively innocuous as that. In the hope that the Government will look at the matter before Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone: moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 38, leave out ("Part") and insert ("section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 29, 36, 37 and 40. In Committee I questioned strongly whether subsection (3) of Clause 7 was too broadly written in that it might catch people on a wide scale. We have just been talking about this in relation to other amendments. I shall not pursue that further but instead concentrate on explaining the purpose of Amendment No. 16. The other amendments I referred to are consequential upon it.
The amendment seeks to narrow the definition of "injury" just to Clause 7 so that it does not apply to the whole of Part. II. That is because, as I shall explain more fully in relation to Amendment No. 17, there are some clauses within that part of the Bill where this wide definition could be seriously misinterpreted. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships and to my noble friend the Minister that the safest way to use the term "injury", if it has to be used, is to narrow its usage down to just this clause.
In replying to one of my previous amendments my noble friend said that the definition of "injury" is used more frequently now in legislation. However, it is not frequently used in this Bill. I say that because I have only had to put forward three consequential amendments which seek to strike the word out of Part II. Therefore the term is not as widely used as may be thought. Perhaps, therefore, it would be wise to narrow its usage down to this clause alone. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the amendments of my noble friend Lord Mottistone reiterate the concerns he raised in Committee. I hope that he is now less concerned about the definition of "injury" as contained in Clause 7. As I have already said in response to my noble friend's amendment to Clause 7, the definition is a reasonable one and, I maintain, consistent with the common usage of the term. Moreover, it would not
1142
cover any impairment due to food intolerance or to the after-effects of alcohol.
I cannot accept my noble friend's first amendment. The term "injury" in turn defines the crucial expressions "food safety requirements" and "the health risk condition". Consequently, it influences the major offence provisions in Clauses 7 and 8, the seizure powers in Clause 9, the enforcement powers in Clauses 11 to 13 and the regulation-making powers in Clauses 16 and 26. I cannot, therefore, agree that the word should be defined only in respect of Clause 7.
As for the remainder of his amendments, my noble friend will also note that we have tabled a number of amendments of our own to the enforcement powers in Clauses 11 and 12 which address his concern that as originally drafted these clauses were rather inflexible.
I cannot accept his specific proposals to amend Clauses 11 to 13. It still appears to me that the loss of the term "injury" leads to a lack of precision and could therefore weaken the clauses. The term "injury" is wide enough to cover the circumstances where enforcement action is needed but, as I have already explained, not as wide as my noble friend may have feared.
I hope therefore in the light of that rather involved explanation that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that full explanation. At this stage I am certainly satisfied with that response in relation to these amendments. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 16.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 39, after ("temporary") insert ("and attributable to food,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to emphasise the fact that subsection (3) is referring to health in relation to food. My concern and that of the Food and Drink Confederation which advises me is with the terms of Clause 11(2). I am not quite sure whether my noble friend's amendments will adequately clarify the situation.
If noble Lords will look at Clause 11(2) it can be seen that it deals with the "health risk condition" in relation to the "construction of any premises" and other such purposes. In this connection the fear is that "injury" could well be taken to encompass the health and safety of employees at work; for example, people constructing premises who may fall off ladders. Therefore it would seem reasonable to ensure, especially as this is the purpose of this part of the Bill, that we are really only talking about injury in relation to food. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern that it is not specified in Clauses 11 to 13 that the term "injury to health" applies only in respect of injury caused by food. It would indeed be quite inappropriate for food

1143
authorities to use the Food Safety Bill as a draconian extension of health and safety legislation.
However, I am happy to be able to reassure your Lordships that the term does not have the breadth of meaning which my noble friend fears. The way the term is defined in Clause 7 is such as to make it clear that it refers to food. Moreover, the scope of the Bill means that the term is confined to food.
I must therefore ask my noble friend whether he will consider withdrawing the amendment. I should add, however, that I agree wholeheartedly with its purpose but I am confident that the Bill already meets the concerns he has expressed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her reply. I shall study carefully what she said. Moreover, I shall read the Bill again, for the umpteenth time, before deciding whether to take further action. I am very pleased that my noble friend understands what I seek to achieve. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Selling food not complying with food safety requirements]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("or").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is put forward in the shape of a general safety requirement. I argued the case for such a requirement at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings. I should say that at this stage that while moving Amendment No. 19 I am speaking also to Amendment No. 20, the former being a paving amendment by way of a word change.
I do not know whether it was my argument or the way in which my amendment was worded at a previous stage —I add that the one I now propose is produced in roughly the same shape —which led the noble Baroness to say that she found the reasons to have such a safety requirement included in the Bill difficult to follow. I do not think it was due to my argument, but I may be wrong. I should point out that the wording is taken directly from Section 10(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. It is also similar to that which introduces such a duty in the draft product safety directive, which, as your Lordships know, extends to food.
The main objective of such a safety requirement is to block up holes, if I may put it that way. It is a catch-all clause which would not only cover any loopholes which may currently exist in the Bill but would also cover future eventualities. Such a requirement is particularly important at present as regards future eventualities because technology in food changes so fast.
In Committee the noble Baroness also said that she found the idea of a new safety requirement to be unnecessary. I think that she said that the existing clauses, Clauses 8, 15 and 16, were a more targeted way of dealing with such problems. The arguments
1144
which I brought into play at that stage related to the example of microwave cooking. Having read the report of the proceedings on the Bill at Committee stage I am not absolutely clear how the clauses that the noble Baroness mentioned would deal with the problem. In order to keep the subject alive and not bore your Lordships by going over the same ground again, perhaps I may put another example to the noble Baroness and perhaps she can tell me how the Bill deals with it.
Let us consider the troublesome problem of red kidney beans. It may not generally be known, although it is probably known to all Members of your Lordships' House who cook, that severe stomach upsets can be caused by consuming red kidney beans unless they are cooked for at least 10 minutes.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, much longer.
6 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: Much longer than 10 minutes, as the noble Baroness says, in order to destroy the natural toxins which are contained in the beans. I bow to her experience in cooking. I believe that commendably the Government have written to the bean trade —if one may describe it as such —asking those involved to label their products with the requisite cooking instructions. However, there is no legal requirement —no legislative inducement —for those who sell red kidney beans to conform to the Government's request.
I dare say that the noble Baroness will suggest that the labelling regulations cover the point, but surely these requirements do not cover the sale of loose red kidney beans. It is even arguable whether they cover pre-packaged beans. If someone were to become ill from eating beans sold loose from a shop when no warning is displayed, it is unclear whether an offence has been committed. I suppose that outside your Lordships' House it is unreasonable to expect purchasers of raw kidney beans to know that they need this special treatment. I would welcome comments from the noble Baroness on that. It is an area in which there could be problems which might extend to other foods.
One accepts the Minister's final point that the provision which was added during the previous stage of the Bill, Clause 16(1)(e), gives the Government powers to impose labelling requirements. However, surely, rather than dealing with loopholes as they emerge, a higher degree of protection would lead to consumer confidence. This has been mentioned at several stages of the Bill and it would be achieved through a tighter and more watertight framework by adding this subsection. That is what the amendment tries to achieve.
As the Bill is intended to give a comprehensive legislative framework for food safety, it seems strange that the Government do not wish to raise the standards of consumer protection to those in other areas. It is my contention that your Lordships should carefully consider the amendment which I put before the House today because it would benefit consumers, manufacturers, retailers and the Government alike.

1145
We should avoid a good many problems by tightening the band of legislation around this area. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we seem to have got into a fog with this amendment. I did not understand the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, in the first round and he did not understand what I said. Let us try to put this matter to bed.
With the amendment we turn to the other side of the coin and I cannot accept it. As I said during the discussion of Clause 7, I think that we have got the balance about right and should be wary of amending key provisions. In any event, as it happens, I believe that the addition is unworkable and unnecessary. Perhaps I may talk about the famous kidney beans for a minute. If they are pre-packed, as they might well be, the labelling regulations cover them. If they are sold loose, the Food Advisory Committee is looking into labelling requirements for non-pre-packed food. We shall draw kidney beans to their attention. As a cook, I merely say that if people do not boil them for a long time they might find that their teeth suffer because the beans are extremely hard.
I do not think that it is possible to say that food fails to comply with the food safety requirements if it is not reasonably safe. It is extremely difficult to determine whether or not food is safe, even taking account of those factors listed in the proposed amendment. Food which is safe to eat at a particular time may be harmful if eaten later because it has deteriorated. Food which does no damage to one person's health may be dangerous for another.
Clause 8 already prohibits the sale of unsafe food which must be taken to include all the factors which have a direct effect on the safety of the final food, including those factors set out in the amendment. I believe that these provisions are sufficiently comprehensive and I hope that the noble Viscount has understood my explanation and will withdraw his amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness and I understand each other much better, perhaps because it is earlier in the evening than on the previous occasion. I understand what she has said and it is true that the Bill goes a good way towards allaying many people's fears about the relationship between government and food safety in times of changing needs. The rejection of the amendment is still puzzling to many of us who criticise the absence of an absolute safety requirement. This would put an obligation on those who supply food to the public to undertake to provide food which is safe in the way indicated in my amendment.
However it is not my intention to press the amendment. I do not think it is foggy; we are not in a fog or mist. I am confident that time will show that one may need to tighten the legislation in future. It would be arrogant of me to suggest at this stage, taking into account what the noble Baroness has said, that the Government resisted a move towards further protecting the consumer. I believe that a
1146
careful watch will be kept in the future. After what the noble Baroness has said, we may well have to come back to the argument, but I am glad that we have clarified some of the points at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Inspection and seizure of suspected food]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("forthwith") in line 10 and insert (", as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within 21 days, determine whether or not he is satisfied that the food complies with food safety requirements and—
(a) if he is so satisfied, shall")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we discussed Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 at an earlier stage and I think that they are clear. The essence of Amendment No. 21 is that there should be no unreasonable delay in providing an answer as to whether or not the food is fit. Therefore I have now brought back this amendment in a modified form. I believe it is self-explanatory. I hope that the Government will view it favourably. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for tabling these amendments. The argument may have been clear at an earlier stage but the amendment was not. A period of 21 days should be long enough to allow a local authority to carry out the necessary tests. I believe that these amendments strike the right balance between the needs of the enforcement authority and the owner of the food. I am happy to accept the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 11, after ("satisfied,") insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 20, leave out from ("witnesses") to end of line 23.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee. In the first instance the Food and Drink Federation advised me that it was concerned that a Justice of the Peace should not deal with a prosecution where he had been involved in the initial condemnation of the food. At that time my noble friend Lady Hooper said:
"A justice who has become prejudiced in the course of hearing the application for the condemnation of food would in practice always withdraw from any subsequent proceeding in relation to the food". —[Official Report, 15/1/90; col. 461.]
I confirmed that to be so from my knowledge of magistrates in my county.
I also draw attention to the fact that Clause 9(9) specifically leaves out subsection (5)(b) in relation to Scotland. That might be understandable in the first instance because the Scots do not have JPs. However, it does not replace that provision with an amended equivalent. Therefore, the provision is clearly not considered necessary for Scotland at all.
As I said in Committee, I believe the best thing to do is to leave out subsection (5)(b) altogether. That is what I am now proposing. I believe that the subsection is unnecessary because the essential feature of whether a JP does two jobs or one is a matter for the local Bench. They are the best people to decide that matter, depending on the circumstances involved. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I cannot sort out this matter as I have not been into the detail. However, we have JPs in Scotland although their role is somewhat different. I expect that my noble friend has studied that matter and doubtless the Minister has sorted it out.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I recall a previous discussion on a similar amendment at the previous stage of the Bill. I suggest that the paragraph which my noble friend now wishes to remove does not tell the Bench what to do but merely makes it clear that two options are open to it. I believe it would be a retrograde step to remove a paragraph which clarifies the position of magistrates. It seems to me that such a paragraph can only be beneficial to them. On that basis again I cannot accept the amendment of my noble friend on this occasion too.
On the Scottish point which my noble friend raised, as I understand it Clause 9(9)(a) simply elaborates on the reference to a Justice of the Peace to include a reference to a sheriff and a magistrate. I can confirm that sheriffs, like judges, are legally qualified. That is not the case with JPs. Therefore they have a different role. That accounts for the difference in the application to Scotland. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, this is certainly not a matter to make a great fuss about. However, I believe my noble friend has been advised rather stubbornly by people who have included an extra and unnecessary subsection, subsection (5)(b), and who are jolly well going to hold onto it through thick and thin, even if it is not necessary. This is very much a matter of back seat driving on behalf of the magistracy which is perfectly capable of deciding whether a magistrate should sit on a Bench when he has been involved in some previous exercise of his duties. Therefore I think the subsection is totally unnecessary and has been insisted upon through the stubbornness of some people who are involved in the matter. I hope the Government may feel that they are overlegislating, as is so often the case these days. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 7, line 35, after ("value") insert ("and other costs, claims, damages and expenses incurred or suffered by the owner directly").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I moved an amendment in Committee which was rather wider
1148
than this one in that I was trying to recover not only costs for immediate and direct losses but also for those involved in loss of good will and good name. That may be rather difficult to value. The Bill as it stands, however, does not cover all the losses that manufacturers could be faced with in the wrongful seizure of goods. Clause 9, as it is set out, only covers depreciation in value.
However, I know of a case where a firm was instructed that it must retain all its stock of mayonnaise and not put it on the market at all because it had to be checked for various organisms. As a result 31,144 cases of that product had to be put on hold. Although a meeting was held with the environmental health officer and the company presented what it considered to be sufficient data to prove that the product was all right, it was still asked to continue to hold the product. The company carried out its own microbiological tests to confirm the product was all right but they were not acceptable. However, I support the view that an independent public analyst should carry out these tests, so I do not think, the company had any grounds for complaint there. Nevertheless, 13 days after the initial contact the company was told that the tests had been completed with satisfactory results and that the product could therefore be released.
The company had held all its stocks of that product, but as its customers could not do without it the company had to employ additional staff, at overtime rates, to make up replacement goods in order to supply the customers. When the goods were eventually cleared there was no loss in their value because they were still worth the same amount on the shelf, and as they were eventually supplied no compensation could be claimed under the terms of the present wording of the legislation. However, the cost to the firm in terms of supplying all the replacement products at a certain speed with overtime rates payable was estimated to be about £5,000. My amendment seeks to cover direct losses incurred by someone whose goods are subsequently found to be not faulty in any way and quite fit for sale. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I supported my noble friend at Committee stage when she moved a similar amendment and I do so again this evening. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend Lady Trumpington to pay very careful attention to what my noble friend Lady Gardner has said when we consider Clause 13.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall make sure that my noble friend Lady Trumpington is aware of the point made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley.
As my noble friend Lady Gardner said in moving the amendment —although not in so many words—Section 9(4) of the Food Act 1984 already requires enforcement authorities to compensate the owner of the food for any depreciation in its value resulting from its seizure, if a magistrate refuses to condemn it. That requirement will continue under the Bill. I reiterate that our aim is to maintain the proper balance between effective enforcement of

1149
public health measures and the legitimate interests of food businesses. We believe that this provision achieves that balance.
It is important to realise that, if we accept the amendment, we should be widening the provision and requiring local authorities to cover the costs of other expenses, such as legal fees and loss of custom. That would push up the compensation bill dramatically. As I said in Committee when my noble friend moved a similar amendment on the same subject, one of the main aims of the Bill is to ensure the effective enforcement of food safety law, for the better protection of public health. If we were to accept the amendment, every time an enforcement officer came across food which he suspected might be unfit he would have to balance two unpleasant possibilities in his mind. If he did not detain or seize the food he might be putting public health at risk; if he did detain or seize it he might be letting his authority in for a hefty compensation bill. That would surely lead to less effective decision-making and less effective protection of public health.
As I recollect, a number of noble Lords, although supporting my noble friend's previous amendments, also said that they had no wish to weaken the enforcement of the Bill. I fear that the amendment would weaken it.
In a case such as that of the mayonnaise referred to by my noble friend, a food business already has recourse to a local government Commissioner and can sue the local authority if it feels that the local authority has abused its powers in some way. Therefore food businesses already have the opportunity to pursue a claim for special compensation if they feel that they have a good case.
I trust that on the basis of that reply my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her explanation, which I shall read with care. However, it seems inconsistent that if the case that I mentioned had involved a perishable product which had depreciated in value it would have been possible to make a claim even if the amount of money was the same, yet because a replacement had to be provided it was not possible to do so. That was the case that I made.
I hope that the Minister will read in Hansard what we have both said on that point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Improvement notices]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("within") in line 11 and insert—

("(a) state the officer's grounds for believing that the proprietor is failing to comply with the regulations;

(b) specify the matters which consitute the proprietor's failure so to comply;

(c) specify the measures which, in the officer's opinion, the proprietor must take in order to secure compliance; and

(d) require the proprietor to take those measures, or measures which are at least equivalent to them").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment arises from an amendment which I put down at Committee stage and which I understood the Government accepted in principle. It concerns the point that there are many different ways of doing something. Therefore, the authorised officer should specify the steps which a proprietor must take but should not be so restrictive as to define those steps to the last detail since the matter could be dealt with by alternative methods. The matter should be open to formal agreement. I believe that there is no need to go into further detail. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I must thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for tabling a revised version of the amendment which she moved in Committee. I am satisfied that the amendment will achieve our aim of ensuring that defective food premises are brought up to standard while at the same time ensuring that undue burdens are not placed on food businesses. I am therefore happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 8, line 12, at end insert —
("(1A) Within the period referred to in subsection (1)(b) of this section, an improvement notice may be revoked or amended by any authorised officer of the enforcement authority under whose authority it was issued. The proprietor on whom the improvement notice was served shall be notified in writing"):
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 26 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 27, which is consequential. The object of the amendment is to ameliorate the drafting of Clause 10 which, as it stands, requires that an improvement notice once issued must be complied with in total subject only to an appeal to a magistrates' court, which is provided for in Clause 37.
It has been suggested to us that circumstances may arise in which the issuing officer or another authorised officer of the same enforcement authority wishes either to amend or revoke the notice. For example, an environmental health officer may have issued an improvement notice requiring new steps to be taken to prevent infestation by birds only to discover that adequate steps have been taken but not drawn to his attention. In such a case the enforcement officer might wish to withdraw the notice. Alternatively, an improvement notice could be issued requiring an improvement to be carried out in a certain way. It might then be drawn to the attention of the environmental health officer that the same result could be achieved by other and perhaps better means. In such circumstances he would probably wish to amend the notice. It is to cover such circumstances that the amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I appreciate the purpose behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. However I believe it to be unnecessary.
I accept that following the issue of an improvement notice there may be discussions with

1151
the owner of a food business which will result in the enforcement officer wishing to change the notice. For example, if the owner has tried to find a builder to carry out work but is unable to locate one who can do it within the period specified in the improvement notice, he night approach the enforcement officer to lengthen the period. In those circumstances the enforcement officer could issue a new notice and withdraw the old one. Those powers do not need to be explicit in the Bill.
We have just discussed an amendment to Clause 10 brought forward by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. That will make the improvement notice system much easier for food businesses. I might add that it would also be possible for the owner of a food business to appeal against an improvement notice if he so wished. We are bringing forward an amendment to Clause 37 of the Bill later today which will allow the court which hears the appeal to alter the terms of the notice. That is another route by which an improvement notice can be changed on the application of the person on whom it was served.
I hope that, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was aware that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, improved the climate somewhat. I am grateful for it. In those circumstances and in the light of what the Minister said about improvement notices in general, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Clause 11 [Prohibition orders]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("(in this Act referred to as a "prohibition order")").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, in moving Amendment No. 28 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 33 and 115. The main amendment here is Amendment No. 30 and the others are all consequential upon it.
The amendment reflects the desire expressed in Committee by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes that the imposition of a prohibition order on the proprietor of a food business should be something which is at the court's discretion rather than required of the court. The Government agree with that view. As I said in Committee, it is not our intention to prohibit an entire company from carrying on a food business because of an offence committed in the single outlet which may not be typical of the company as a whole. Our aim, as I said then, is to catch the real offender. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will agree that it is necessary in some circumstances to give the court the power to prevent someone from being involved in the management of any food business. We have
1152
therefore taken the opportunity to revise the clause in general and I should like to explain to the House what we have done.
I should like, first, to emphasise that before a court can begin to consider whether a prohibition order may be imposed on the proprietor of a food business he must first be convicted of an offence under hygiene regulations. We originally thought that we would cover within the scope of this clause cases where a proprietor was convicted under regulations on processing or treatment of food. However, we no longer believe that this is necessary and we consider that all the circumstances in which we would like courts to have the power to consider a prohibition relate to offences against hygiene regulations.
I am sure that noble Lords are aware that the scope of the hygiene regulations is very wide. Your Lordships will notice that we have altered the requirement in the Bill that the state or condition of the premises or equipment must pose a risk of injury to health before the court could impose a prohibition order on a proprietor. We think that that precondition was unnecessarily restrictive on the court.
To ensure that the powers are used properly, we have also come to the conclusion, following comments made during our deliberations at an earlier stage and elsewhere, that a court considering the imposition of a prohibition order on the proprietor of a food business should be required to take account of the wider circumstances of the case. The provision will, we believe, allow the court to take account of the seriousness or repeated nature of the offence which has been committed. It will also allow the court to consider whether the order is being imposed on the real or main offender. Your Lordships will see that in a little while we shall move another amendment which allows a court to place a prohibition order on the manager rather than the proprietor of a food business. There may be some cases where both are convicted under hygiene regulations. However, it may only be appropriate to impose a prohibition on one of the parties concerned because of the nature of the offence. The amendment that we are now discussing allows a court to do that.
Finally, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the additional discretion which the amendment gives to a court to prohibit the person concerned from the management of any food business or from a particular type or description of food business. For example, a court might consider that a person's behaviour led it to disqualify him from running a restaurant. However, because of the difference in the risks involved, he might still be able to run a greengrocer's shop. The amendment allows the court the discretion to adjust the scope of the prohibition order as it thinks fit. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am delighted that the Government have brought forward the amendment because this is an extremely complex matter which it is difficult to get right. As I said in Committee, I have seen cases where thoroughly disreputable and unreliable people were managing or running food businesses. When they

1153
were closed down by the local authority health committee, they turned round and opened up another one pretty well next door. At that stage nothing could be done about it.
The flexibility now built into the clause will still give the powers to the court to ensure that an unscrupulous person cannot flout the law, yet it will not have the effect about which the Food and Drink Federation was so concerned. If the previous wording had been retained, even the largest manufacturer of foodstuffs in the country could have been closed down because of the actions of perhaps a tiny, newly taken over branch over which it had not yet had an opportunity to exercise full control. I am therefore most grateful to the Government for considering the arguments brought forward in Committee and for bringing forward such satisfactory amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert —
("(4) If —

(a) the proprietor of a food business is convicted of an offence under any regulations to which this section applies by virtue of section 10(3)(b) above; and

(b) the court thinks it proper to do so in all the circumstances of the case,

the court may, by an order, impose a prohibition on the proprietor participating in the management of any food business, or any food business of a class or description specified in the order.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 3, at end insert —
("( ) Where the prohibition concerns the wholly owned subsidiary of a company, it shall not normally be extended to other parts of that company.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is designed to ensure that, in the event of a recently acquired subsidiary of a company being deserving of a prohibition order, the whole company will not automatically be shut down. Part of the problem is perhaps due to the interpretation of the word "proprietor" and its definition later in the Bill. I suspect that Amendment No. 35 takes care of the problem. I should be grateful if my noble friend would reassure me that a large company would not be shut down purely because one of its subsidiaries committed an offence and required a prohibition order. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as my noble friend pointed out, I said in Committee that we would review Clause 11 carefully to ensure that a court could not prohibit an entire company from carrying on a food business because of an offence committed in a single outlet which may not be typical of the company as a whole. I can reassure my noble friend that we have done so and that the provisions of Amendment No. 30 will meet his concern. I shall not repeat my introduction of the amendment here but assume that it will reassure my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, my noble friend's words reassure me and I thank her for them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("a prohibition order") and insert ("an order under subsection (1) or (4) above (in this Act referred to as a "prohibition order")").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 7, at beginning insert ("in the case of an order under subsection (1) above,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 25 and insert—
("(6) A prohibition order shall cease to have effect—

(a) in the case of an order under subsection (1) above, on the issue by the enforcement authority of a certificate to the effect that they are satisfied that the proprietor has taken sufficient measures to secure that the health risk condition is no longer fulfilled with respect to the business;

(b) in the case of an order under subsection (4) above, on the giving by the court of a direction to that effect.

(7) The enforcement authority shall issue a certificate under paragraph (a) of subsection (6) above within three days of their being satisfied as mentioned in that paragraph; and on application by the proprietor for such a certificate, the authority shall—

(a) determine, as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within 14 days, whether or not they are so satisfied; and

(b) if they determine that they are not so satisfied, give notice to the proprietor of the reasons for that determination.

(8) The court shall give a direction under subsection (6)(b) above if, on an application by the proprietor, the court thinks it proper to do so having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular the conduct for the proprietor since the making of the order; but no such application shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 38.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes who made the point in Committee that the owner of a food business should have the right to apply for the lifting of a prohibition order. Where a prohibition order has been placed on a food business or on the proprietor of the business under Clause 11 of the Bill or when an emergency prohibition order has been placed on a business under Clause 12, there will be deficiencies which need to be put right. The amendments allow the owner of the business, when he considers that he has put those deficiencies right, to apply for the order to be lifted. In the case of an order placed on his premises, he would apply to the enforcement authority. Where a prohibition order had been placed on himself as the proprietor he would apply to the court.
If an enforcement authority is considering whether a prohibition order on a food business can be lifted, it must be satisfied that that business no longer poses a risk to health. The amendment also provides that, if the enforcement authority is not satisfied, it should let the owner of the food business know of the reasons for that decision. I hope that noble Lords

1155
will agree that that is a sensible change. It will lead to greater clarity for all concerned. The owner of the food business will be absolutely clear as to what else he must do to satisfy the enforcement authority that his business is no longer a risk to health. Equally, the enforcement authority will be confident that the owner of the business knows what he must achieve and will begin to take the necessary steps. On that basis I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert—
("(9) Subsection (4) above shall apply in relation to a manager of a food business as it applies in relation to the proprietor of such a business; and any reference in subsection (5) or (8) above to the proprietor of the business, or to the proprietor, shall be construed accordingly.
(10) In subsection (9) above "manager", in relation to a food business, means any person who is entrusted by the proprietor with the day to day running of the business, or any part of the business.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is closely linked to Amendment No. 34, which allows the court discretion as to whether or not to disqualify the proprietor of the business. We had in mind, in particular, the situation where the conviction of the proprietor of a large chain of food premises, because of the unhygienic conditions in one branch, should not necessarily lead to the prohibition of the proprietor. Rather, it could well be the manager of the branch in question, who might also have been convicted of the offence, who should be barred from running a food business or managing one for a period of time.
This amendment allows a court to disqualify the manager of a food business or part of a business in exactly the same way as it may disqualify the proprietor. The amendment defines "manager" as the person entrusted by the proprietor with the day-to-day running of the business or a part of the business
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that there are circumstances where it would be indefensible to treat the manager of a single branch or outlet of a major chain differently from the proprietor of a small food business. We recognise that the onus is on the proprietor of the business to ensure that hygienic conditions and practices exist in all the branches of that business. However, because people working in the catering trade in particular tend to move rapidly between jobs within that trade, we think it is necessary to have the power to disqualify a manager so that, where appropriate, he may not move on and immediately begin work with another company where he could continue his bad practices. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a worthwhile amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I have no intention of opposing the amendment. I accept the principle inherent in it and the good sense which lies behind it. I intervene to express the hope that the granting of a facility to proceed against managers, whilst fully justified in the circumstances which the noble
1156
Baroness has outlined, will not result in any weakening of the responsibility of proprietors to ensure that hygiene regulations are observed throughout the whole of their business. I hope that in particular branches hygiene training is fully implemented.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that it is not our intention that proprietors should have less responsibility in those circumstances.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Emergency prohibition notices and orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 10, line 24, leave out from ("business") to end of line 25 and insert—
("8A) The enforcement authority shall issue a certificate under subsection (8) above within three days of their being satisfied as mentioned in that subsection; and on an application by the proprietor for such a certificate, the authority shall —

(a) determine, as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within 14 days, whether or not they are so satisfied; and

(b) if they determine that they are not so satisfied, give notice to the proprietor of the reasons for that determination.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 10, line 39, leave out subsection (10).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 116. The deletion of the subsection reinserts a similar category of bank holidays under Clause 53 —I have amendments down in respect of Clause 53.
As regards Amendment No. 116 perhaps there should be specific reference to the fact that any period that finishes on a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in a relevant part of Great Britain should be treated as finishing on the next day thereafter, which is not such a bank holiday. Your Lordships will be aware that bank holidays vary in different parts of the United Kingdom. It may be unfair if those bank holidays were in the counting period. If they were counted within that period it would be much shorter. I believe that holidays should be counted, whilst recognising that if a period ends with a holiday, the due day should be the next working day. Under the provisions of the Bill a period beginning on a Friday would discount Saturday and Sunday and end on Wednesday. The effect of this amendment would be that the period would end on a Monday.
We are discussing a fine point in regard to calculation of bank holidays.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it was not our intention to produce the effect that my noble friend discovered and raised with us at a previous stage. I am happy to accept my noble friend's amendments, which put it beyond all doubt that, for the purposes of enforcement, Scottish bank holidays are disregarded in Scotland, and English bank holidays are disregarded in England.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Emergency control orders]:
Amendment No. 40 not moved.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 10, line 46, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 42:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Complaints about emergency control order.
(1) This section applies where any person makes a complaint to a justice of the peace on the ground that he is aggrieved by an emergency control order made under subsection 13 above, or by an emergency order made under section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.
(2) If a justice of the peace is satisfied, on the basis of such evidence as he considers appropriate in the circumstances, that there was no imminent risk of injury to health from the carrying out of commercial operations with respect to food or food sources at the time when an order under section 13 above was made, or that food was not unsuitable for human consumption at the time when an emergency order under section 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 was made, the Minister shall compensate the owner of the food or food sources for any depreciation in the value of the food or food sources.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have studied very carefully the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Trumpington at Committee stage. She was kind enough to write to me concerning this amendment.
Despite that fact, I am moving the same amendment not least because I fear that I have not explained the problem correctly. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie of Benshie, will ensure that the position is put quite clearly tonight.
The amendment would provide for compensation for the incorrect application of an emergency order and would only come into play if two rare conditions occurred, the first, of which would be if an emergency order was incorrectly made. A perfect example of that situation occurred recently when a farmer had an order placed on him regarding the movement of his stock because the authority thought that he had purchased lead-contaminated feed. When the invoice was inspected it turned out that the invoice was for rubber boots. The farmer could have suffered unnecessary loss. I hope that your Lordships will agree that in that case he should be compensated. The amendment deals with that point.
The only other point that the amendment deals with that would come into play is a situation where the food was not contaminated. My noble friend Lady Trumpington felt that this would overburden the justices because every farmer would appeal to
1158
the court. I beg to differ for the following reasons. First, farmers have better things to do than to make frivolous appeals before the courts which involve legal costs. Secondly, the order will be in force, so it will be up to the farmer to bring technical evidence to prove that he is correct. That is not an easy thing to do. It could only occur if a glaring mistake had been made. In those circumstances it is a bit like French law: the farmer is guilty until he can prove otherwise.
The amendment would be very seldom used. It cannot be used if the food is contaminated as, for instance, in the Chernobyl situation. It can be used only if there is a mistake by an official. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is important that the individual should always have the right to bring an official, or indeed a Minister of the Crown, before the law if there is evidence that they have acted incorrectly.
In Committee my noble friend said that the fear of such a proceeding would deter Ministers from acting. I believe I heard that tonight also from my noble friend Lady Hooper. I am surprised by such a statement. It reflects poorly on Ministers' characters and more importantly officials' ability. I, and I know your Lordships, would be unable to accept that my noble friend on the Front Bench has a weak character. I am sure that she will assure us that her department and environmental health officers have the expertise, the numbers and the ability to operate the Bill. The amendment does not set a precedent. It only duplicates the procedures set out in Clause 9, which we have just been discussing, which allow producers to appeal to a justice of the peace if they have evidence that they have been incorrectly discriminated against. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are pleased to support the amendment from this side of the House. It has been explained with great clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I should like to refer again to the point that he made which was mentioned in the letter sent to him by the Minister and to add my surprise at the suggestion that the fear of having to pay out large amounts of compensation would be likely to deter Ministers from taking swift action, the result of which would inevitably be to put consumers at greater risk. Surely we are not to believe that the fear of compensation would mean that the Ministry would not act with all the speed and expedition that one would expect in a matter of food safety. The House is entitled to ask the Minister to explain what was meant by the wording.
Another point was raised in the Minister's letter which I believe to be incorrect. It was that traders can insure against such risks and that once new provisions are enacted they may be better placed to seek legal redress from negligent and third parties. When we debated the orders dealing with lead contamintion last week I read a letter from a substantial feed supplier which showed that suppliers cannot obtain insurance cover in a number of areas of risk. It is incorrect to assume that insurance cover is available in all cases.

1159
I am pleased to support the noble Lord because a genuine problem exists which concerns many farmers and others to which the Government should address themselves.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment with care because the arguments which have been adduced against it are, to put it mildly, not practical. First, it is said that the polluter must pay. That is true, but in this case we are talking about an area which has been frozen because of a danger to health. It then turns out that the farm, for example, was incorrectly scheduled as being part of the area. Therefore, if the polluter is sued he can say, "I did not pollute your ground". There are all sorts of complications and the time factor is important.
If a Minister is to take action and wants the backing of the community, farmers need to be sure that they can obtain compensation for doing something which is in the public good and for the public health. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has already said that insurance is difficult to obtain. It is far too expensive. It is nearly impossible to specify all cases. I am sure that it would be difficult to cover everything that might happen in the small print.
I cannot understand why the Minister will not include or substitute a clause similar to Clause 9(7) which provides:
"If a notice under subsection (3)(a) above is withdrawn, or the justice of the peace by whom any food falls to be dealt with under this section refuses to condemn it, the food authority shall compensate the owner of the food for any depreciation in its value resulting from the action taken by the authorised officer".
If that applies to the food supplier who merely buys and sells the food, it should apply also to the grower who has spent years preparing the ground, as in the case of strawberries, for example. He waits the whole year to harvest his crop. If a restriction is placed upon him for 10 days it could ruin not only the ripe crop but that which is to follow. Some provision needs to be included to cover that point.
The amendment is logical but I shall be happy if the Minister cares to substitute a real alternative. In the meantime I do not doubt the justice of the case or the use it would be in obtaining the co-operation of the community in containing any outbreak of food poisoning or distribution of dangerous food.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the principle behind the amendment. It does not seem right to me that one group should be entitled to compensation and not another. I shall not comment on the wording of the clause because I have not studied it in detail. But it seems only fair that something along the lines of Clause 9 should be provided for other people.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I too should like to support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. It is only right, as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, that if one group of people is compensated, so should the other be. I feel so strongly about the point that if my noble friend were tempted to test the opinion of the House I give my noble and, if I may
1160
say so, great friend on the Front Bench fair warning that I might support him.
I could be impressed by my noble friend's arguments, but I should not be impressed if they were to take the following lines: first, it will be a great drain on the Exchequer. If it will be a great drain on the Exchequer it shows that the entire legislation is not working because Exchequer money will be called for only if there is a mistake. If it will be a drain on the Exchequer it means that the whole system is a nonsense.
Secondly, I do not believe that I should be impressed if I were told that the provision would put a great deal of extra work on JPs, because a great deal of work is being put on them in the other part of the Bill. I come from a rural area where such an occurrence might pop up, and it might make rather a pleasant change from the humdrum petty crime and motoring offences which we magistrates hear the whole time to have a bit of common sense like this to work out.
Thirdly, I should not be impressed if I were told that the farmer has the right to go to the High Court. Many of the farmers, especially the hill farmers in my part of the world, could not afford to go to the High Court and the idea would never occur to them. If my noble friend does not like the wording of the amendment, I hope that she will say that she will have a look at it again because, as I said, I shall be tempted to follow my noble friend through a different Lobby from her.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I live in the middle of an important agricultural area where there is a tremendous number of cattle and sheep. If no one can appeal against a proposal, and there is nothing in the Bill which would allow it to be questioned that would be most unfair. The Bill is designed to protect the consumer and also, I presume, the producer. It would be unfair if the producer were criticised or made to pay if the decision were incorrect. I think this amendment would help in that respect and it would be fair to the farmer as well as to the consumer.
7 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I agree in principle with this amendment, although I speak from a different angle from that of the farmers.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I have certain sympathies with this amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley; and of course I am also an interested party. I still have the feeling that really this may be a misunderstanding which is causing a storm in a teacup. I very much hope so. It depends on the reply given by my noble friend. I do not think she was very mollifying in Committee when replying to my noble friend Lord Stanley. However, perhaps more light will be thrown upon the situation on this occasion.
I can only say that when we dealt with the matter of lead in feedingstuffs I, like many other farmers, wanted to check my own position very carefully.

1161
Where a farmer did not have, or did not use, the feed that was contaminated but was nevertheless banned from marketing his milk, I understand there to be no ability for him to claim under a third party policy and that there was no claim on the feedingstuffs supplier beyond his having to replace any feed that was contaminated.
I then got the comment that if the authorities extended their prohibitions too far they would be liable. Of course that is one area of conjecture. I understand that another area concerns the question of the claim against the feedingstuffs supplier. I believe those matters are still before the courts, and perhaps not only the courts in this country.
I wonder what the Minister will do if those cases go against the farmers, because it will put them in a most unfortunate position; there is no doubt about that. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be keeping a close eye on that matter. It would help enormously, I think, if she could give some assurance to farmers as to what the position would be if the result of the court actions were to be as one might fear.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I appreciate that there are enormous problems in thinking through how to apply an arrangement of this sort, but I am bound to say I do not think that the Government can ignore the matter. As my noble friend Lord Stanley has said, it is only in rather rare circumstances that this crops up. It has to be because an official has actually made a mistake so that the emergency order was incorrect, or the feed turned out not to be contaminated. There was a time when farmers had plenty of room for manoeuvre. I was one of them and I do not know whether or not I owned up to it; but there was room for manoeuvre. If someone was unjust to a farmer he could probably accept the extra cost. I am not a farmer now, but I know it is very difficult nowadays in many areas to farm profitably. To treat farmers differently in this respect from other producers of food is not only unjust, but wrong. It shows a certain lack of awareness on the part of the Government of the problems that can be created. So I hope that my noble friend, if she is going to defend the Government's position on this matter, will go away and think very hard about it. This is a big problem. Times have changed and farmers have a right to the understanding of the public and of your Lordships' House in this particular respect.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I fear there will always be times in life when I cannot follow my noble friend Lord Swinton through every door he opens. I cannot accept the amendment put forward by the noble Lords, for a number of reasons.
First and foremost, I have a fundamental objection. This amendment is logically out of place in this Bill. The powers it contains, and those contained in Part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, are concerned with protecting consumers. There are other safeguards for manufacturers and traders. The law already holds
1162
Ministers accountable if they act negligently or unreasonably in the exercise of their powers.
Secondly, it is clear that in an emergency the Government's principal duty may be to protect the consumer. Where it is not possible to establish all the relevant facts immediately, consumers are entitled to expect Ministers to feel no inhibitions about erring on the side of caution. In other emergency situations involving a serious threat to public health and safety, the emergency authorities are free to introduce immediate precautions without concern for possible financial penalties.
Returning to what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, I ask your Lordships seriously to consider whether the introduction of compensation in this clause could act as a deterrent to Ministers concerned about possible financial implications, when their concern should be for the health of the public. Provided that Ministers are acting reasonably —and I have already said that it will remain open to anyone who wishes to test this in court —the risks to commerical operators should be very small. The powers we are seeking provide the utmost flexibility of operation in order that precautionary restrictions may be lifted in whole or in part immediately it is safe to do so.
Thirdly, there are a number of problems relating to the particular approach embraced in this amendment which we did consider at Committee stage. In particular we fear that the judicial system could well be plunged into chaos if everyone subject to an emergency order (and there could be many thousands affected by a single order) decided to register a complaint with a justice of the peace. If this seems fanciful, let me ask what anyone would have to lose under the terms of this amendment by making such an application "just on the off-chance", when the potential commercial advantage is so obvious.
Moreover, very few JPs could be reasonably expected to have the necessary technical expertise to make a judgment or, in the early stages of an incident, to have sufficient facts to second-guess the Minister's judgment on what may or may not constitute a risk to human health. Since this amendment is so fundamentally at variance with the objectives of the clause, I will not spend time on detailed drafting points, beyond pausing to wonder how it could possibly work in practice. How, for example, would the level of compensation be determined? Are the Government expected to compensate at the client's own valuation or is the JP also expected to calculate the appropriate depreciation in value? Or, again, is it envisaged that some new tribunal be set up to work through such claims? The amendment gives no guidance on this rather vital pratical question: nor does it place any limit on the number of applications a party may make. Presumably a claimant could approach one JP after another until he finds one who will agree with his case.
On insurance, people can legally insure if they can find an insurance company willing to cover the risk. The latter may be a little difficult, I freely admit. With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord,

1163
Lord Stanley of Alderley, who told a jolly little story about an invoice for rubber boots, I am reliably informed that this has been checked out by my Ministry. Nobody has as yet been able to substantiate this story.
Before I sit down, I should like to return to the more general argument. Could I press the noble Lord further with a mixture of principle and practical concern?
The amendment seeks to introduce the possibility of compensation if, with the benefit of hindsight, Ministers turn out to be mistaken in taking emergency measures. They would not even know at the outset where the particular consignment was contaminated.
I am responding to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. Obviously all that they can do is to take a view of what appears prudent or necessary at the time when crucial decisions have to be made. We want Ministers to be free to do what is in the public interest without risk of legal challenge. We do not want them to become liable to pay compensation, if and when, additional facts come to light, if it is apparent that they were mistaken although acting in good faith.
I also remind noble Lords that present emergency action is taken under voluntary arrangements. We have made it clear that we hope these will continue with emergency control orders being the exception rather than the rule.
The noble Lord, Lord Banshee, asked —I am so sorry, I do apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness permit me to say that I take little offence from her calling me the noble Lord, Lord Banshee. I object much more to the remainder of the speech!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall still civilly answer the point that he raised. He asked why we do not insert the provision from Clause 9. Clause 13 is quite different. It will be used when the risk is widespread. Clause 9 in contrast applies to a single seizure of food. The emergency control orders are not only for use against farmers. On the contrary, we would often expect to use the Food and Environment Protection Act for on-farm problems. What they will do is to back up the Department of Health's hazard warning systems which are used to withdraw food when there is a risk to public health. The provisions of Clause 13 will therefore also apply to manufacturers and retailers of food.
We did pay compensation. An example is that to date almost £7 million that the Government have paid to those farmers affected by the restrictions following the Chernobyl accident were despite the absence of any specific statutory provisions within the Food and Environment Protection Act.
I have a great many more arguments to deploy, but I believe that the time has come when your Lordships will wish to make up your minds.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Baroness wrung our hearts with the quite pitiful vision of Ministers who acted in good faith having to pay compensation. Does she agree that they would not have to pay compensation out of their own pockets?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, replies, perhaps I could allow him the benefit of what happened to me.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Lyell: My Lords, at Report stage I may speak once on each amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend, not after the Minister.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their help, with the one exception, I am afraid, of my noble friend on the Front Bench. Obviously we cannot agree on this. If the amendment is wrongly drafted, as we all know it is always possible to correct that afterwards. Certainly I can put the details in it.
However, I wish to address the principle. I do not think that my noble friend has addressed herself to that. I shall comment very briefly on the points that have not already been raised. Most of the points that she brought up have already been raised. It is no good behaving like children, saying, "Yes, you did"; "No, you did not." I shall comment only on those that have not been brought up.
First, I am reliably informed that if one goes to the ombudsman he has no power whatsoever to direct the Minister. He can only advise. That course of action is therefore out for the farmer.
A judicial review is not possible in the case of an individual farmer. I am sorry that we have not got this difference over to my noble friend. We are talking about very few individual cases because of the terms in which the amendment is drafted. I do not believe that she and her department have looked carefully at it. To have a judicial review for an individual farmer is quite out of the question. One might have a judicial review if the Minister designated Norfork instead of Suffolk. That is the situation in which a judicial review would be brought.
I received the assurance from the Minister which I welcomed that in the end the Government paid for Chernobyl. I was affected by Chernobyl. I can remember the agony that we went through before we received compensation. I do not wish to see a repeat of what happened then, when my right honourable friend Michael Jopling had to go every week on his knees before the Chancellor and say, "Please spare a penny for the farmer". I do not wish to see my noble friend having to do that. I do not mind seeing her on her knees, but I do not think she would wish to be put in that position. I mean that seriously. I believe that the provision should be on the statute book.

1165
The other point is the question of the Minister failing to act, or being worried about acting, because of the provision. I am appalled by that argument. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, brought it up. I shall have to repeat it. If the environmental health officers are properly qualified, and if there are enough of them, they will not make mistakes. If one makes mistakes, I was always taught that one pays for them. That is all that I am asking for. I shall not continue because obviously unfortunately we cannot agree. I shall have to ask for the opinion of the House.
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 54.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barnett, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Blyth, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Congleton, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pender, L.

Downshire, M.

Phillips, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ennals, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Erroll, E.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Falkland, V.

Savile, L.

Forbes, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Swinton, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Tryon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wise, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wynford, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blatch, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Borthwick, L.

Greenway, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Caithness, E.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Henley, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hives, L.

Colwyn, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hooper, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Kenilworth, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

1166

Lyell, L.

Renton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rodney, L.

Margadale, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Merrivale, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mersey, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Ullswater, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Windlesham, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.24 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. I suggest that the Report stage begins again at 25 minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1990 Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1990 Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1990 Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations 1990 Social Security (Industrial Injuries)(Regular Employment) Regulations 1990 Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations 1990
7.25 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the three draft orders and the three draft regulations all of 1990, standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved.
Before I address the orders I wish to repeat a point made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 25th October in announcing the uprating of social security benefits. In the coming year we shall be spending a record amount on social security; that is, more than £55 billion. This means that expenditure on this vital area will be running in excess of £1 billion each and every week. I believe that that is a measure of two important issues: first, the success of the Government's policies in generating wealth which can be shared by all: and, secondly, the level of our commitment to a social security system able to provide real help to those whose need is greatest.
I should first like to set out our intentions for financing contributory benefits, on which we plan to spend more than £30 billion in 1990/91. For the seventh year running we do not propose to change the rates of Class 1 contributions in the coming year.

1167
However, the lower and upper earnings limits will be raised to £46 and to £350 per week respectively. Therefore, most employees will pay less in Class 1 contributions.
As regards employers, we propose to increase each of the earnings limits below which they pay lower contribution rates roughly in line with inflation and rounded to the nearest £5. These proposals ease the cost of employing some lower paid workers, and I am sure that the House will welcome that.
As regards self-employed people, we propose to increase Class 2 contributions by 30 pence to £4·55 per week from next April. We do not propose any change to the profits-related Class 4 rate paid by some self-employed people. The profits limits on which contributions are payable will be increased to £5,450 and £18,200 respectively.
I turn to the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations. They have been considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee, and its report incorporating the Secretary of State's response is also before the House. The regulations provide for an increase, by more than the level of inflation for the lower rate of SSP, of £3 to £39–25. The higher rate is increased by the more limited sum of 40 pence to £52·50. The regulations also propose that the earnings threshold which determines when the higher rate becomes payable be increased from £84 to £125 per week. This produces some limited restructuring of the earnings band which divides the two rates in order to restore the position to that which applied when SSP began in 1983.
I stress to the House that the regulations will not generally lead to employees receiving a reduction in payment when sick. That is because the difference will be made up by occupational sick pay from the employer, which now covers 91 per cent. of employees.
I readily acknowledge that, because of the way that SSP and occupational sick pay schemes interact, employers will, under the proposals, bear a slightly greater proportion of the cost of short-term sickness. However, compared with total labour costs of business of approximately £250 billion, the shift is very small and we do not believe it to be unreasonable. The changes in SSP are wholly consistent with the Government's objective to help those most in need.
I shall now, if I may, briefly address the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1990. This order obliges occupational pensions schemes which are contracted out of the state earnings-related pensions scheme to provide post-award increases of GMPs (earned in the tax year 1988–89) by 3 per cent. from the 6th April this year.
The draft Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations largely flesh out the administrative details of the recoupment scheme. There are two matters which make these regulations subject to the affirmative procedure: first, the range of benefits in regulation 2; and, secondly, the small payment limit in regulation 3. The benefits were announced during the passage of last year's Bill and there are no
1168
surprises in regulation 2. The list is as it was when we first announced it and is broadly the same as the list of benefits which are currently offset by compensators.
My honourable friend the Minister of State announced the small payment limit of £2,500 on 21st December last in a Written Answer in the other place. It is a 60 per cent. increase on the original £1,500 figure proposed by Touche Ross and will reduce the administrative cost of the scheme by leaving about 37 per cent. of cases subject to offsetting. In this way compensators will continue to claw back about £2 million a year which will help towards any additional costs which they may have from the scheme.
The draft Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Regular Employment) Regulations stem from the abolition of the pensioner's earnings rule. These regulations are beneficial and clarify the likely entitlement to reduced earnings allowance of people who are either approaching or are over pension age.
I shall now turn to the Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 1990. This order provides for an increase in retirement pension and virtually all other benefits which are not income-related of 7·6 per cent. which is the increase in retail prices which took place between September 1988 and September 1989.
I am well aware of the strong feelings of noble Lords and of honourable Members in another place about the Government's decision not to increase the level of child benefit this year. I do not propose to repeat everything that has already been said on this subject, but I shall make just a few observations which I hope noble Lords will bear in mind.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said only last week, targeting involves making judgments about the needs of different groups at a particular time and the relative weight of their claims to any additional resources that can be made available. In fulfilling the legal requirement to review the level of child benefit this year my right honourable friend took account of the rapid and considerable increases in real incomes of the great majority of working families with children.
Over the past year alone the real take-home pay of a married man on average male earnings, including the effect of the £3 a week reduction in national insurance contributions, has risen by around £20 a week. For a married man with two children it has risen by around a third over the past decade. And in the numerous cases where both partners are working, the overall increase in family income will have been even greater. It was against this background of rapidly rising living standards and substantial extra resources being made available in this year's uprating that my right honourable friend felt on this occasion that greater priority should be given to the needs of less well-off families who are out of work or in low-paid work, pensioners, disabled people, their carers and families with disabled children.
The final observation which I would wish to make is simply that not only would an increase in child benefit, at a net cost of £250 million, have given relatively small amounts to large numbers of families

1169
who cannot be said to need it, but, more to the point, it would have done nothing at all to help the 3 million children (almost a quarter of all children) in families receiving income support and family credit because these benefits are adjusted to take account of changes in child benefit. In contrast, what we have done by directing more resources to families with children through the income-related benefits is to bring the total amount of extra help provided for these families to over £350 million a year in real terms since April 1988.
Thus, in deciding the level of benefits for April this year the Government were able to go beyond the normal uprating of benefits in line with prices through a package of extra help to priority groups. For example, the family premium income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit will be increased by an extra 50p above inflation and an extra £1 a week will reach those working families getting family credit. With the introduction of family credit we are now spending twice as much on working families with children compared with its predecessor, family income supplement.
The lone parent premium in housing benefit and community charge benefit will be increased by 12·8 per cent. from £8·60 to £9·70 a week. From October the amount lone parents can earn without affecting their housing and community charge benefit entitlement will be increased from £15 to £25 a week. These changes will help about 95,000 lone parent families. We are increasing the social fund maternity payment from £85 to £100. We have increased the social fund capital level which people aged 60 or over may hold from £500 to £1,000. This improvement took effect on 1st January 1990 for cold weather payments and applies to other social fund payments from 9th April 1990. This will enable more elderly people to be helped by the social fund.
We are increasing the adult disability premium in income-related benefits from £13·70 to £15·40, which is £1 more than inflation. We are more than doubling the child's disability premium in income-related benefits from £6·50 to £15·40. These changes and others we are proposing will provide significant extra help to many people whose need is greatest.
While concentrating on the changes contained in the order, it is right that I should also remind the House of a number of other changes which have been, are being or will be brought about by other mechanisms but which are very much part of the context in which this particular order is brought before the House.
Last October we abolished the pensioners earnings rule and made substantial increases in the income support and housing benefit premiums for disabled pensioners and those over 75. We are preparing and will shortly lay regulations to extend attendance allowance to families with severely disabled babies and to extend mobility allowance to those who are both deaf and blind.
The current Social Security Bill now in Committee in another place extends attendance allowance to the terminally ill without the normal six-month waiting
1170
period and provides for an age-related addition of the severe disablement allowance. Last week we referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee draft regulations, all of which we hope to make by April, to make further beneficial changes in relation to income-related benefits, of which I should mention one in particular.
As described in an answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary last week, we shall double to £10 a week the current disregard for charitable and voluntary payments made to people receiving an income-related benefit and disregard completely any regular charitable or voluntary payment intended and used for an item other than certain accommodation costs met by benefit, food, ordinary clothing or footwear and household fuel. This change will allow charities, voluntary bodies and relatives to give more help to people without affecting their benefits.
The increase in social security expenditure between 1989–90 and 1990–91, most of it arising from this order, is £3 billion. It takes the total of social security expenditure next year to nearly £56 billion. As I said at the start of my speech, that is over £1 billion each and every week.
But what is no less important than the amounts involved is what we are doing with it and the people we are seeking to help. Taken together, these changes and those relating to the wider changes providing help for disabled people announced by my right honourable friend on 10th January mean that in a comparatively short space of time we will have brought about a real improvement in the position of nearly 3 million of the least-well-off pensioners, 850,000 disabled people and carers, 1·5 million low-income families with children, including nearly 100,000 lone parents and around 50,000 war widows.
Next year we shall be spending more than ever before on social security, with expenditure running at more than £1 billion each and every week; that is, £20 per week for every man, woman and child in the country. I believe that the changes that we are proposing are a demonstration of this Government's commitment to a social security system which delivers real help to those whose need is greatest. I commend the orders and regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft order laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]; That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]. —(Lord Henley.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he introduced these Motions and I congratulate him on the lucidity with which he dealt with these very complicated matters.

1171
I have very little to say about the guaranteed minimum pensions order and the social security industrial injuries regulations; the changes seem to be largely technical.
In relation to the industrial injuries regulations the Minister neglected to remind the House that it is, as I understand it, the Government's intention to abolish the reduced earnings allowance for all new claimants. I propose to concentrate on the re-rating, the uprating and the recoupment regulations. We should remind ourselves that the total paid in national insurance contributions of some £32 billion is two-thirds of the amount raised in income tax. It is a pity we do not often have the opportunity to debate the tax and national insurance systems together because for most low-paid people national insurance is a more relevant "tax" than income tax.
The noble Lord the Minister referred to the record amount of £55 billion which the Government are spending on social security. I expected him to quote that figure. Perhaps I can remind him that almost every spending programme of all government departments has increased every year from time immemorial, with the exception under this Government of agriculture. However, I remind the House that social security now receives a lower share of national resources than 10 years ago, despite 3 million more people on income support, twice as many unemployed and 1 million more pensioners.
Mr. John Hills has pointed out that,
"Overall, the bottom half of the population has lost £6.6 billion"—
that is, in tax changes and benefit changes —
"of which £5.6 billion has gone to the top 10 per cent. and £4.8 billion has gone to the top 5 per cent."
With regard to child benefit, as the Minister said, this has now been frozen for the third year running and that freeze is worth £250 milllion to the Government. That is to be compared with a £70 million increase in family credit. The real value of child benefit has been cut by 20 per cent. We are told that child benefit goes to those who do not need it because it is paid, as we know, regardless of income. However, when it comes to targeting it, as the Minister will know, that is a logic not applied to mortgage interest relief, to the contributions to private pension schemes and now to tax relief for private health schemes for the elderly. The richer you are the more you benefit from those reliefs.
Something that struck me recently was, as I understand it, that the figure for uprating child benefit is actually included in the public expenditure plans of the department, and therefore when the Government decide to freeze it, obviously they have those funds available to use for increases in other benefits. I should be glad if the Minister could comment on that. No doubt we shall return to child benefit and the Social Security Bill when it reaches this House in one or two month's time.
I saw a quotation from the other place at col. 931 of Hansard on 7th February. Mr. Paul Flynn referred to a Conservative MP who appeared on a Channel 4 TV programme explaining to aspirant Members of
1172
Parliament from Hungary and Poland how to write a manifesto. He said:
"In the Conservative manifesto of 1987 we made a promise about child benefit, saying that it would be paid as now and direct to the mother. Of course, when we come up against a problem, we can look back to the manifesto and if we want to pay the benefit, we can pay it, but if we do not want to pay it —if we want to freeze it —we can freeze it because the sentence was ambiguous". —[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/90; col. 931.]
That is a revealing quotation. I may have been out of order when quoting from Hansard of another place. If so I apologise to the Minister, which will save him time in reminding me. I should perhaps have paraphrased it.
I shall say only a few words about retirement pensions because I know that my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon will be speaking about pensions. The point about breaking the link with earnings has been made many times in the past, but it is worth reminding ourselves that if the link had not been broken, the single pensioner would be receiving £60 per week instead of £46·90 and for a married couple the pension would be £95·80 instead of £75·10.
Perhaps I may repeat a point I made before. Most of the financial surplus in the public sector for which the Government take credit results from breaking the link between earnings and pensions. The repayment of the national debt is in fact coming out of the pockets of pensioners. I am sure the Minister when he replies will refer to the other sources of a pensioner's income, but if so he must attempt to deal with the point that more than half of all pensioners live on or near the poverty line.
Another point which has often puzzled me in respect of pensions is that in private pension schemes it is standard practice to link the eventual pension payment to earnings. Since the Government believe that the private sector knows best about most things, why does not the practice of the private sector also apply to the public sector when it comes to retirement pensions?
I turn now to statutory sick pay. What we have seen amounts to a downgrading of statutory sick pay. The lowest rate of SSP has been increased by a princely 25p per week more than inflation. The highest rate increased by £3·55 —less than inflation. The increase is in fact 0·76 per cent. As the Minister said, the higher rate now to be paid is £125 a week instead of £84 a week; that will cost employers the slightly greater amount of £80 million per year.
The Minister also said, as was quoted in another place, that 91 per cent. of employees are now covered by occupational sick-pay schemes and the Government are looking to those schemes to make up the difference. If those schemes have to pay out more as a result of that, what will happen to the premiums for those schemes? Presumably they will have to increase. The rise in the earnings threshold means that hundreds of thousands of workers will be disqualified from higher rate statutory sick pay. As the Minister said, the Social Security Advisory Committee did not approve of this change. It would perhaps have been helpful to the House if the Minister had briefly given the reasons why the Government rejected the advice of the SSAC.

1173
I turn now to the recoupment regulations. That was a subject which we discussed at great length during the Social Security Bill in the last Session. Most of us understand the clawing back of benefits related to income. What we fail to understand is why that part of the compensation which relates to pain, hurt or suffering should be clawed back. As I say, that is a point we debated at great length on the Social Security Bill. We believe that change could lead to further delays for victims who are awaiting compensation. We are also entitled to ask the reason for rejecting the advice of the British Insurance Association when it suggested that the small payment limit should be £5,000 rather than £2,500 which is the figure in the regulations.
Is there a danger with the change that insurance companies will be encouraged to minimise compensation, particularly in out-of-court settlements, so as to reduce their possible liability and to compensate the Department of Social Security? The saving to the Government is £55 million. What will happen to that money? Will it be used to increase those benefits which are to be clawed back under the regulations?
The Minister referred to the social fund. As we know, the budget for the social fund is effectively being all but frozen for the third year at £205 million, despite increasing reports of claimants being refused grants and loans for urgent needs. The latest figures show that at December 1989 56 per cent. of community care grant applications (18,411) and 40 per cent. of budgeting loan applications (26,546) were refused. We think that the £20 million saved in the 1988–89 social fund budget should be added to the 1990–91 budget, and the budget for community care grants should be uprated for inflation.
Finally, the Minister made a point about the amount that the Government are spending on social security. We welcome the increases where they apply. I have seen a calculation that government expenditure over and above inflation for disability and carers' benefits, families and elderly people, adds up to £185 million. The government savings from the freezing of child benefit and the restructuring of statutory sick pay amounts to between £320 million and £330 million. So there has been an overall saving of £135 million to £145 million.
We are seeing a picture where the increases in some benefits are paid for by the freezing or the reduction of others. In the department it is very much a case of having to pass the money from one pocket to another rather than providing genuine increases in the benefits which are needed for the people I have mentioned: the additional 3 million people on income support; the increase in the number of unemployed; and the million additional pensioners.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in congratulating the Minister on the lucidity with which he has introduced these regulations. I should also like to
1174
say that I found the regulations themselves a little less impenetrable than usual. I look first at the recoupment order on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will also be saying something in a moment. That was debated exhaustively and indeed I might say exhaustingly, in this House. It was also debated in the office of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
I will not run through all the arguments that we had. We pursued them to the Division Lobby and we lost. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about the small payments' limit. I feel a considerable misgiving about the vast administrative and bureaucratic apparatus that will be necessary to enforce the machinery of that clause. Since the situation is what it is now, I hope that we were wrong about it, but I am not yet persuaded of that.
I turn now to the statutory sick pay regulations and I do so with a certain amount of misgiving. I observe that they are signed by authority of the "Security" of State for Social Security. I cannot help wondering whether they are an official secret and I should not be talking about them at all. Nevertheless, the Minister expounded them with commendable honesty. They raise the earnings' limit for the higher rate from £84 to £125 a week. That is a considerable jump. The justification given is that 91 per cent. of people have occupational pensions. That raises a problem as regards those who have not. I believe that here we shall find another aspect of the problems created by the part-time revolution; namely, the people who miss out on the steady occupational schemes. I believe that matter will need our attention in the future.
The Secretary of State remarked that employers will bear a greater proportion of the costs of long-term sickness. I believe that we have here, as we have concerning the recoupment order, part of the process of steady, creeping privatisation of liability. That is something which I view with some misgiving. I also view with some misgiving, particularly in our present industrial situation, the transferring of costs from the Exchequer where they are widely shared, specifically onto the backs of industry. The Confederation of British Industry in a leaflet on the economic needs of 1990, has complained that the Government continue to pass through unjustified cost increases to companies. I believe that the statutory sick pay order is a case in point. For the sake of our industrial recovery, which is urgent, I regret it.
I turn now to the uprating order which is obviously our main business this evening. It is the duty of Oppositions to be thankful for small mercies and I am. I welcome the increase in the child disability premium and I welcome particularly warmly the carers' premium. The problem of carers is one about which we have heard a good deal. My noble friend Lady Seear has spoken very movingly on this subject a number of times. It is also an issue which is beginning to interest the Equal Opportunities Commission whose locus standi in the matter is obvious.
We need to do a great deal more about carers. The measure is not a substitute for a solution, but as a

1175
first step I welcome it. I welcome the concession on the attendance allowance for the terminally ill announced in this House in response to the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and my noble friend Lady Seear. I wish to raise one small misgiving about that. When the matter was debated in the House it was clearly the intention to include AIDS in the list of what was to be covered.
It has been put to me whether we are correct in using the phrase "a progressive disease" to describe AIDS or is the progressive disease the secondary infection which in fact usually kills the patient. I hope that, before we reach the Bill later in the year, the Minister will undertake to look at the problem to see whether AIDS is satisfactorily covered because that was so clearly the intention of those who made the concession.
I warmly welcome the extension of the mobility allowance of the deaf-blind whose plight was so movingly described last summer by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. On the other hand, correspondingly I regret deeply the failure to extend the mobility allowance to those with mental handicap. I appreciate, as the Secretary of State said, that there are difficuties in the way of finding satisfactory definitions. I would welcome an assurance that the Secretary of State is working on ways to overcome those obstacles.
I also welcome the Secretary of State's remark in another place that he is looking at ways of improving the medical adjudication procedures which have caused considerable anxiety. I also associate myself with the remark made by my honourable friend Mr. Taylor in another place, that the mobility allowance is of particular importance to people in rural areas. I once lived in an area near my honourable friend's constituency. It was a two-and-a-half hours' drive to the nearest hospital. In those circumstances one can imagine the problems of out-patient appointments.
As regards the overall matter of disability, I feel that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse. Last summer we were told over an over again that there was a massive survey going on at the hands of the OPCS and that there would be an overall review of disability benefits at the end of that review. What has happened is good but it is not very much. I hope the Minister can tell us whether that is really all we are getting in the way of a review of disability benefits. If that is so, then those who undertook the labour of conducting those surveys —and a very considerable labour it was —might feel legitimately disappointed.
There are a number of matters which one must welcome with a certain reservation. I refer to the increased earnings' disregard for single parents which is not a substitute for a child care disregard for income support and for housing benefit. In a sense it is obiter on this occasion as he was speaking on a slightly different subject, but I hope that it is in order to welcome the remarks made by the former Secretary of State for Employment on tax allowances for the cost of child care as reported in today's paper. I fully agree with them.
1176
I welcome, as far they go, the increases in support for residential care for the elderly, but I note, as my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood said in another place, the great likelihood that they will all be swallowed up in increased fees. In thinking about that, I am led to wonder whether we have a satisfactory system and whether indeed residential care for the elderly is an entirely suitable subject for the application of the free market. I should have thought that, if anything, they would be looked upon as a captive market, and in the circumstances I hope there will be some long-term thought about the system.
I welcome the concession for war widows but associate myself with the question asked in another place by the honourable Member for Aylesbury. In these days of equality of opportunity, will that concession apply to war widowers? I think it should. There are other things which one cannot welcome. I regret the failure to uprate the limits for savings disregards; for example, in the case of family credit. That looks to me like an erosion of one of the few significant victories in the course of the passage of the 1986 legislation. I regret, of course, and regret deeply, the failure to uprate child benefit. I shall not bore the House by repeating familiar arguments but I should like to say that I agree with everything said by the honourable Member for Aylesbury in another place.
I should also like to touch on one or two arguments which are not quite so familar. The business before us tonight illustrates why there will always be a lower take-up rate for means-tested benefits. All the limits are now being changed. I doubt whether even the Minister, if I met him outside the Chamber in a few minutes, could remember them all by heart without looking at his papers. If the Minister cannot, and I cannot, how do we expect those in receipt of benefits to remember them? I feel strongly that we under-rate the difficulty of tackling the social security system for people who are not always among the most successful in our society.
When limits change every year there will always be a low take-up rate. People will be out of date in their knowledge of the limits. I feel strongly that the Government are continually increasing the liabilities facing parents. I refer to the teenagers who are supposed to stay at home and to the new measures on criminal punishment. The one which concerns me at the moment is the rapidly rising cost of school books. I accept what the Minister said about wages in child rearers' pockets, but if he cared to look into the matter he might find that the cost of school books is increasing a good deal faster than wages. That might deprive the argument of some of the force which it appeared to carry. I also believe that when one has neither child benefit nor child tax allowance one distorts the market in favour of the childless. From a Government who purport to believe in free market theory that is a use of state power to achieve a social purpose which I am rather surprised they hold.
I regret too that nothing has been done to narrow the gap between the rates of income support for teenagers and for older people. I have recently moved

1177
to King's College in the Strand. When I go home late in the evening I regularly watch the uncomfortable sight of people bedding down in doorways. During the gales and rain of the past few weeks it has been a very uncomfortable sight indeed. The Secretary of State could at least have slightly narrowed that gap. I am sorry that he has not. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about the social fund. I have tabled a Question on that subject, and so I shall not pursue it further tonight.
Finally, on the total sum of money invloved, I agree with my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood that there is some sleight of hand on the subject of total money. In looking at the discrepancy between Government figures and Opposition figures on total money, the key variable seems to be whether one counts the £250 million set aside for uprating child benefit. If that it not counted, it surely seems to imply that the Secretary of State never genuinely reviewed child benefit and that there was no serious plan to uprate it.
Beyond that —I must be careful how I put this point —I agree with what my noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee said on 31st January. When listening to Government claims on spending we sometimes feel we are listening to a rather panglossian argument. I know that the social security budget is high —I spoke in the debate on the humble Address about how it might be lower —but I do not see the extreme generosity on which the Minister prided himself. I found it very hard indeed to square that with the evidence of my own eyes in a great many places. Perhaps I may say in this context that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will be successful in the ballot with his Motion for a debate on the quality of government statistics.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I hope that I shall be brief enough to enable us to get on with the other business as soon as we have disposed of the business before us.
I am advised by the CBI on this matter. It feels that it has been bounced this year. It normally has good relations with the Department of Social Security and is given ample time for discussions on particular matters. The particular matter this time concerns the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations. On 16th January the director general wrote to the Secretary of State. He did not receive a reply. On 18th January the order was laid. That gave the CBI very little time to respond, but, more importantly, it dismisssed in a rather cavalier fashion any thoughts the CBI might have had on the matter.
The CBI has three points. I should emphasise that when the orders were laid in another place the main feature of the debate on the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations was the loss of benefit to employees. The effect on employers was rather lost. My noble friend the Minister gave the figures and we have also heard about the total saving of £80 million per annum. Industry has three main concerns. Most of those £80 million savings will be made at the employers' expense because the great majority of employees receive occupational sick pay.
1178
That point was made by other noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whom I thank for his contribution.
My noble friend said that the sum of £80 million was small in relation to the total labour costs in the economy of £250 million. I would suggest to him that that is a cheap point. It is a drop in the ocean compared with other expenditure that my noble friend and the Government fund, but the relative amount to an individual employer is not a drop in the ocean. Furthermore, it is not evenly spread. Any increase in employers' costs is particularly unwelcome at the moment because of the urgent need to reduce unit labour costs.
It is fair to say that the one stumbling block to success for this country in the future is the fact that, try as we may, our unit labour costs are still much higher. They have fallen a good deal in the past 10 years but they are still much higher than those of our major competitors. Moreover, anything which adds to that must be bad. The fact that the Department of Social Security is not concerned with that kind of consideration does not mean that it does not have to take the matter seriously. Costs should not be shelved off on employers because that will not make this country competitive. Further, the money will not be coming in to fund social security.
The second major point is that employees will receive less sick pay and they will expect the employers to make up their losses. As my noble friend said, most employees will not be worse off as a result of the changes because their employers pay full pay during the initial weeks of sickness. However, many will find that they are worse off. It is likely that employees in particular sectors of the economy will suffer most. I say that because there are certain sectors in which employees are less likely to be covered by occupational sick pay schemes.
My noble friend said that 91 per cent. of employees are covered. However, only 56 per cent. of employers provide an occupational sick pay scheme. Moreover, half of those companies employing between one to nine employees do not provide such a. scheme; nor do a quarter of those employing 100 or less employees. Further, almost three-quarters of employees covered by occupational sick pay schemes are affected by eligibility conditions. For example, in order to qualify for sick pay an employee must be employed for, typically, three to 12 months. Employees working in such sectors as retailing and hotel and catering are likely to have especially high turnover rates. Turnover rates between 30 per cent. and 100 per cent. are still not uncommon at the junior grades. I say "still" because when I was a director of the Distributive Industry Training Board we reckoned that anyone in the retail trade who had a turnover rate of less than 40 per cent. was doing very well. I suspect that that will always be so.
Employees who are earning between £90 and £125 per week will see an especially sharp fall in their statutory sick pay, as will those who receive flat-rate occupational sick pay paid at the top of the scale. I shall not continue with that line of argument. I shall leave the matter there because time is running out and we must allow my noble friend adequate time to reply.

1179
The third point about which members of the CBI are particularly concerned is that this measure is but the first step of the Government passing the total responsibility for sick pay to employers. Thus the whole cost of the statutory sick pay scheme, which is currently £1 billion, would be transferred to employers, representing a 2·5 per cent. addition to labour costs. That is not acceptable when employers and employees pay around £25 billion in national insurance contributions in order to pay for benefits such as statutory sick pay.
I should very much like to receive a reassurance —and, if possible, a convincing one —from my noble friend on that last point that it is not the thin end of the wedge. Moreover, as it is much too late for us to reject the orders, I should also like him to tell me that the points we have raised have been appreciated. Perhaps he will also say that he regrets the fact that the Secretary of State did not reply to the Director General of the CBI before the orders were laid. In my view, although we cannot really call it bad manners, it is something of that order. I should very much like to receive those reassurances.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to know whether he agrees with the point that I put forward. Employees are covered by occupational sick pay schemes. If those schemes are funded through the insurance system, is it not a fact that if they have to pay out more the premiums will increase?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, there is not sufficient time for me to analyse the matter. Of course, the noble Lord may well be right and if there was a little more time available I would be able to do a little sum and provide him with an answer. However, that is not possible.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should also like to speak to the uprating order. Indeed, I shall confine myself to speaking to just one item in the order. My noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have dealt in full with all the items in the order, but I wish to draw attention to the extent to which state retirement pensions are falling behind as a proportion of male gross earnings.
I think that we should set on record the fact that for a single person in 1977 the pension was 21 per cent. of male gross earnings; that is, £17·50 per week. In April 1990 that figure will have dropped to 16 per cent. Therefore the pension of a single person will have fallen to only 16 per cent. of male gross earnings. In the case of a married couple, in 1977 their pension constituted 33·6 per cent. of male gross earnings, but by April 1990 that percentage will have fallen to 25·6 per cent. That means a drop from 33·6 per cent. to 25·6 per cent. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows, that drop has been caused by the break in the link with earnings —a link established by the Labour Government —which was the course the Conservatives took in November 1980. That action has had baleful consequences for pensioners ever since.
1180
In money terms, single pensioners would be enjoying £13·10 per week extra —in other words, £60 per week rather than £46·90 —if the link with earnings had been maintained. Moveover, for a married couple the extra pension would amount to £20·70 per week; that is, £95·80 instead of £75·10. Translated into annual terms, in 1990 a single pensioner will be £681 worse off and a married couple will be £1,076 worse off as a direct result of the wilful and criminal decision of this Government to end the pensions link with earnings.
Further, due to the ending of that link a single pensioner has lost in total terms, £2,419 between November 1981 and March 1990. A married couple have lost £3,813 during the same period. Moreover, by March 1991 the loss will have grown to £3,100 for a single pensioner and to £4,889 for a married couple. Those are very significant figures, especially as regards very poor people.
The Government boast about the whole nation sharing in greater prosperity which they say they have created. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, told us all about that when he introduced the orders. However, that certainly does not apply to pensioners since their income from the state retirement pension has only kept up with the cost of living.
Pensioner couples, and some single pensioners, are about to suffer another blow as a result of the imposition of the poll tax. That applies not only in the so-called Labour "spendthrift" local authorities, but also in the Tory heartlands such as Berkshire where the county treasurer is reported as believing that the poll tax will turn out to be not the £278 estimated by the Government, but between £400 and £450 per poll tax payer. If that turns out to be true then single pensioners will not benefit at all from the poll tax —as they were supposed to do —and married couple pensioners will pay, on average, nearly twice as much in poll tax as they now do in rates.
I have made my point. I hope that the Government will think seriously about what they have done to pensioners and their standard of living in destroying the link between pensioners, the state retirement pensions and the male gross earnings. The Government have done a great disservice to pensioners. If the Government and Mrs. Thatcher really want us to believe that they have a heart and that all should share in the great prosperity that they say they have brought about, they will reverse the position on pensioners and give them a good boost in their weekly and annual income.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I wish to start by commiserating with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone. They will both have a long day and be deprived of their dinner. However, I am afraid it cannot be helped. I shall try to be as quick as I can, though I shall not be able to cover all the points made by noble Lords. If I go much beyond 10 to 15 minutes, not only will my noble friend Lady Trumpington be upset but —even worse —I imagine that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip may have thoughts on the

1181
matter. I also wish to thank my noble kinsman Lord Russell for pointing out the small misprint in the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Regulations,
"signed by authority of the Security of State".
I can assure the noble Earl that there are no sinister intentions whatsoever behind that. Since this is a draft statutory instrument I presume that the error will be corrected before it is signed by the authority of the "Security of State".
Turning to some of the points raised in the debate, I wish to start with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. He claimed that social security expenditure was falling as a percentage of national income. I should remind the House that when the party opposite left office in 1979, social security expenditure formed only 9·5 per cent. of GDP. Next year it will form over 10 per cent. of GDP. That is an increase in the percentage of GDP. The noble Lord also said that the expenditure for all departments was increasing and that this department was no exception. I think that that was an uncharacteristically ungenerous response from the noble Lord to a total 36 per cent. real terms increase in social security expenditure since 1978–79. In any terms that is a massive increase in resources committed to this area. I should also say that social security has grown as a proportion of total public expenditure from 25 per cent. in 1978–79 to 30 per cent. in 1989–90.
Continuing on the subject of public expenditure, the noble Lord said that in the Government's public expenditure plans we have already provided for child benefit to be uprated in April 1990. This convention allows individual benefits to be considered on a comparable basis. The fact that estimates of future child benefit expenditure in the public expenditure White Paper allow for uprating in line with RPI cannot pre-empt the review of child benefit. The law requires the Secretary of State to carry out that review each year as part of the annual review of social security benefit rates, when he decides the level in the light of circumstances at the time.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did not carry out a genuine review of child benefit. I can assure him that the contrary is true. He did what the law required him to do, which was to determine the level of child benefit in the light of all the circumstances at the time. As I made clear in my opening remarks, he had full regard to the rise in real incomes of many families where the head is working. I repeat that the changes which we are making from this April will bring a total of £350 million extra to families receiving family credit and income support in real terms since April 1988.
My noble kinsman Lord Russell asked why there was no increase in capital limits. We feel that a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think that I must tell the House in all honesty that if there were money available to improve social security provision, I should be sceptical about proposals to extend the capital limits further at this stage. The House must be aware that the housing benefit capital limit was increased from £6,000 to £8,000 soon after the new
1182
scheme was introduced in April 1988. The capital limit was doubled to £6,000 under income support, compared with £3,000 under the old supplementary benefit.
As regards child benefit, I am not sure that I can go much further than what I said in my opening remarks. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, child benefit will continue to be paid as now, direct to the mother. As I have already said in answer to my noble kinsman Lord Russell, it will continue to be reviewed every year in the light of the existing circumstances. I do not think that I can go much further than what I have said.
I turn now to recoupment, which comes under the Social Security (Recoupment) Regulations 1990. Again I feel that it would not be productive in the short time we have available this evening to reopen the whole debate. However, I should say a few words on the size of the figure—£2,500. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who suggested £5,000.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, it was the Brutish Insurance Association which suggested that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, presumably the noble Lord endorsed the £5,000. That was the figure put forward, as the noble Lord will know, in an Opposition amendment. I cannot remember whether or not it was in this House but certainly it was proposed in another place last year. My right honourable friend the Minister of State explained in Committee why such a high figure was unacceptable. It would exclude over half of all compensation claims and seriously undermine the principles that the compensator should meet his full liabilities.
The amendment envisaged that compensators would continue to offset benefits by 50 per cent. over the whole five years from the date of injury. While this is acceptable for genuinely small payments to save administration where there is only a small amount of benefit involved, it is not acceptable at the £5,000 level.
Again my noble kinsman queried the cumbersome administration of the recoupment scheme. We have kept the procedures as simple as possible. Officials have worked with the representatives of the compensators and others in the private sector to make the rules match what is already done. We are grateful for the help which the private sector has given very readily.
I turn now to abolition of REA, which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised. I think he would accept that it is outside the scope of the debate on the regulations. An opportunity will arise on this, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said on child benefit, at the Committee stage and presumably at other stages of the Bill when it comes to this House from another place.
Pensions were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Stoddart. One complaint was of a break in the link between earnings and the retirement pension, where we now uprate in line with the RPI, as I have said on many occasions. We do not accept that the link between pensions and earnings is the key factor in improving pensioners' incomes. What

1183
matters most to pensioners is the value of their total income. The success of this Government's policies in protecting the value of pensions against rises in prices while encouraging the growth of other incomes is demonstrated by the 23 per cent. rise in average pensioners' total net incomes between 1979 and 1986.
The noble Lord also alleged that pensioners are becoming poorer and are not sharing in the increased prosperity of the nation. Between 1979 and 1986 the proportion of pensioners in the lowest one-fifth of national income distribution fell from 35 per cent. to 24 per cent. Moreover those pensioners in the lowest one-fifth of pensioner incomes experienced a real terms increase of 19 per cent. in their total net incomes. Last October the Government directed an extra £200 million a year to the less well off elderly and disabled pensioners through changes in the premium structure for income related benefits. Overall, around 2·5 million pensioners have benefited from these changes.
I turn now to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble kinsman Lord Russell and their comments on statutory sick pay regulations. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for the delay in obtaining a reply from my right honourable friend. I told my noble friend that I understand that my right honourable friend replied to that letter earlier today. Bearing in mind the problems of time, I do not wish to go through all the points that were raised by the CBI in the letter to my right honourable friend and my right honourable friend's reply to that body. However, I shall certainly make copies available to noble Lords if they want them.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was also worried about employees who were excluded from occupational sick pay schemes because they were recent employees. We acknowledge that some employees will not have worked long enough to qualify for occupational sick pay. However, half the private sector schemes have no exclusion clause at all. I believe that in any event the incidence of sickness in the early weeks of a new job tends to be low. The noble Lord also asked about our future plans on statutory sick pay. I can assure him that there are no plans at this stage to make further changes to statutory sick pay.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why we had rejected the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendations. In his response to the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Secretary of State explained that the change in the earnings threshold to £125 merely restored the balance between the rates of SSP which applied when the scheme began in 1983. I believe I referred to that in my opening remarks. That is why the Government did not accept the committee's recommendations.
I have now been speaking for 12 minutes and I am well aware that there are many points that I have been unable to answer. However I undertake, as I always do, to read the Official Report carefully and to write to noble Lords to cover the points which they have raised and which I have not been able to
1184
cover. These measures reflect the success of our policies which we have achieved without placing an excessive burden on contributors or taxpayers. I commend the orders and regulations to the House en bloc.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he please send me a copy of the letter from the Secretary of State to the Director-General of the CBI?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, I shall certainly make that letter available to my noble friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Safety Bill [H.L.]
8.34 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 14 [Selling food not of the nature, substance or quality demanded]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 11, line 30, after ("nature") insert ("or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 44, which has been tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, and to my own Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47. My amendments arise out of amendments moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Lucas and which the Government accepted in principle. They ensure that separate offences arise concerning the nature, substance or quality of food.
The amendments moved by the noble Lord were concerned with the sale of food to the prejudice of a purchaser and with the labelling of such food. We welcome these amendments, which remove any possible doubt as to the meaning of the relevant provisions. However, for the sake of consistency, we feel that it is better to make similar amendments to Clause 15(2), which refers to the advertising of food, and also to Clause 15(3), which deals with its presentation. I am most grateful to my noble friend for his proposal and I trust that your Lordships will be able to accept these amendments. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes has the same effect as the first of my amendments. In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I was asked to move Amendment No. 44, standing in my name. However I am now speaking to Amendment No. 43. I was asked to move the amendment by the John Lewis Waitrose Group because it was surprised to note the terms in which the clause was drafted. It effectively repeats provisions which were formerly contained in Section 2 of the Food Act 1984, with one significant drafting difference. That is that the former Section 2, which was drafted by the Law

1185
Commission —the 1984 Act was a consolidating Act —specifically moved away from its forerunner, Section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, by making it clear that the words "nature, substance or quality" were to be interpreted disjunctively. That word is quite beyond my understanding but I believe it means what the noble Baroness has just stated. A deficiency in any one of those matters I have referred to was sufficient for the purpose of establishing an offence. Moreover, the 1984 Act Law Commission draft took cognisance of numerous High Court decisions. That was the reason for the wording of the amendment. However, to my lay eye, the amendment looked almost identical to the one moved by the Minister. If she can assure me that it is just as effective I shall be quite happy to follow her suggestion and not move Amendment No. 44 when the time comes.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I give that assurance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Falsely describing or presenting food]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 47:
Page 11, line 41, after ("nature") insert ("or").
Page 12, line 1, after ("nature") insert ("or").
Page 12, line 6, after ("nature") insert ("or").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert—
("(6) For the purposes of this section, a label or advertisement which is calculated to mislead as to the nutritional or dietary value of any food is calculated to mislead as to the quality of the food.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 15 penalises any person who by label or advertisement falsely describes food or is likely to mislead the public as to its nature, substance or quality. It does not, however, include within its ambit provisions presently contained in Section 6(4) of the equivalent section of the Food Act 1984, which deals with labels which mislead or are calculated to mislead as to the nutritional or dietary value of food. The John Lewis Waitrose Group is concerned about any label which deliberately misleads people.
The matter was discussed to some extent at Committee stage. If the Minister can assure me that it is already covered, I shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment. However, I believe that it is an important issue. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, like Thatcherite Conservatives, I am in favour of adults being encouraged to stand on their own feet. One could only wish that the Bill leant rather more in the direction of individual judgment and choice and rather less in the direction of paternalism. However, individual freedom of choice cannot be exercised
1186
usefully and intelligently without adequate information. Without it the consumer is at a great disadvantage vis-à-vis the producer.
The labelling of ingredients in food on grocers' shelves in this country has always seemed to me to be inadequate. There was, indeed, a time when it was perfectly legal to sell something described as "butter shortbread" which contained practically no butter whatever. Improvement in that respect is undoubtedly needed, even if the minutely detailed list of ingredients required by the well-known Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture—which anyone who has bought imported American food will know —goes too far in the opposite direction. Too much prepared packaged food in this country is still inadequately or misleadingly labelled. Therefore I warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that things have moved on since he last looked on a grocer's shelves.
I am confident that Clause 15 is fully comprehensive and will clearly cover labelling or advertisements likely to mislead as to a food's nutritional or dietary value. I truly believe that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary.
As my noble friend will be aware, the matter was raised in Committee, and I am grateful for this opportunity to expand on what I said then. The Food Labelling Regulations 1984, to which I referred, do not spell out that the nutritional or dietary value of a food is an aspect of quality because they do not need to do so. However, the regulations contain specific rules on dietary and nutritional claims and the necessary powers to amend or expand the provisions of those regulations are included in the Bill. Those powers are wide enough to meet all my noble friend's concerns. I am sorry if my earlier remarks did not make that clear, but I believe that my noble friend has no cause for anxiety. I hope that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Food safety and consumer protection]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("(cc) provision for requiring the public display of information or labelling relating to the irradiation of any food").
The noble Lord said: The amendment raises an issue on which the Government conducted a consultation exercise in 1989. The irradiation of food raises important questions as to the provision to the public of information about the process at a time when such information may conflict with the commercial and marketing attractiveness of the product in question.
A particular concern has revolved round goods for sale and public display and particularly as to

1187
restaurant menus, it is understood that the Government's current position is that a restaurant menu should contain a general statement that some of the ingredients used in foods have been irradiated and that it is not proposed that individual dishes should be so labelled.
In a European context, your Lordships' Select Committee in its recent report did not like the proposed Community logo. Do Her Majesty's Government contemplate a United Kingdom logo? If so, where will it be displayed?
We have tabled the amendment to enable the Government to explain their current thinking on the issue and their proposals as to the next steps in the labelling issue given that those matters are relevant to the powers to introduce irradiation being taken under Clause 16. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that his amendment is unnecessary. Clause 16(1)(e) already gives Ministers wide powers in respect of labelling, including the labelling of irradiated food. There is thus no need to make specific provision.
Amendments were agreed last year to the European Community labelling directive which specifically require that the label of an irradiated foodstuff shall carry the words "irradiated" or "treated with ionising radiation". Similar rules would apply to listed ingredients. Although those EC rules do not apply to pre-packed foodstuffs we have made it clear that we would extend our requirements into that area.
There are particular practical difficulties which need to be addressed in such areas as mixtures of food which are sold loose or in catering, which includes restaurants. We are currently consulting with interested parties on the most effective way of presenting the information so that consumers can be fully informed and thus exercise proper freedom of choice. We shall be making the appropriate regulations. However, we can already take such action either under existing legislation or under the powers proposed in the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will accept that the issue is already well provided for and withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The amendment was in the nature of a probing amendment. It has elicited some useful information from the noble Baroness which will be studied. In so far as it tells me something that I did not already know I am grateful. I am sure that those who asked us to put down the amendment will be equally grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 12, line 34, leave out second ("or") and insert ("including in particular provision for prohibiting or regulating").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 50 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 55, 59, 119, 120 and 121. They are all technical amendments designed to clarify various regulation-making powers in the Bill. As your Lordships know, it is very much an enabling Bill, designed to provide a framework to cater for all eventualities, foreseen and unforeseen. I can assure your Lordships that the amendments do not represent a change of policy on the Government's part. We are simply trying to make sure that the enabling powers are cast as widely as we always intended so that there is no room for doubt. We do not want to be caught out and unable to act if events suddenly take an unexpected turn, as they certainly could.
Amendments Nos. 50, 55 and 59 will ensure that if necessary Ministers can make regulations to prohibit commercial operations in relation to food, food sources or contact materials. The Bill already provides powers to regulate commercial operations, but there could be circumstances in which it would be in the interests of consumers to prohibit sales altogether. For example, we might need to prohibit production while safety tests were being carried out or we might want to ban the sale of animal products which might carry a risk of disease. Amendments Nos. 50 and 55 apply to the general regulation-making power in Clause 16 and Amendment No. 59 to the power under Clause 17 to make regulations implementing European Community obligations.
Amendment No. 55 also clarifies that Ministers can make regulations to provide controls on material that comes into contact with food to ensure that it is hygienic and to regulate its labelling or advertising. That might be necessary, for example, to ensure that coffee filter papers or cling film meet proper standards of hygiene and are properly labelled.
Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 clear up a potential anomaly in the controls that can be applied to animals, crops and other food sources. As drafted, the Bill allows regulations to prohibit the sale or use for human consumption of products from diseased animals or crops. The amendment makes it clear that the same applies to animals or crops liable to be suffering from any specified disease, such as tuberculosis or foot and mouth. Your Lordships may be interested to note that similar powers in respect of milk are already available in Section 35 of the Food Act 1984. Details of any regulations that we might make would be subject to public consultation.
Amendment No. 121 allows Ministers to make regulations giving enforcement officers powers to inspect and deal with food sources suspected of not complying with requirements. Sections 13 and 33 of the Food Act 1984 already provide similar powers in respect of live animals but the amendment would extend the power to all food sources including crops. Regulations could provide for enforcement officers to inspect live animals or growing crops to ensure that they or any food to be derived from them comply with regulations giving enforcement officers powers to deal with food sources that do not comply. They could prevent the slaughter of animals or the harvesting of crops until requirements were met

1189
and they could, if necessary, require animals to be detained on the farm. So, for example, if an animal contained veterinary residues above specified limits it could be kept until the residue had reduced to an acceptable level.
I hope that your Lordships will agree to the amendments which, I believe, provide a great many useful clarifications. Perhaps I may once again remind noble Lords that in all cases any regulations made would be subject to public consultation.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley will wish to speak to his Amendments No. 56 and 57 which are grouped with these. I hope that in view of my explanation noble Lords will agree to withdraw that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Baldwin Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert —
("( ) No regulations under subsection (1)(c) above permitting the irradiation of food shall be made for a period of three years from the passing of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to the substance of the matter of food irradiation. There is no need to delve into all the arguments again; it will be enough to summarise them. Before I do, I should like to say how sad I am that there appears no possibility of a meeting of minds with the Minister on this issue. I read a headline in last Tuesday's Independent which said, quoting a Conservative MP:
"Margaret Thatcher is convinced that anyone who disagrees with her is either a fool or a knave".
Those of us who are unhappy about irradiation have the feeling of being confronted by that kind of attitude. When the Secretary of State himself is on record as seeing it as his job to "stamp on" —those were his words —those who hold different views about food safety, it is not surprising that the debate becomes shriller than it need be. I shall try not to be too confrontational, but it is not always easy.
There are a number of concerns about irradiation, such as vitamin loss, which are not immediately relevant to the amendment, so I shall not repeat them. I must admit that I found it a difficult amendment to frame. My chief concern remains that of safety. I accept that the detailed terms of our amendment in Committee were not ideal. I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, (Amendment No. 52) but, although it is better than nothing, it seems to me to be in effect abdicating one's judgment on safety matters to other people.
I have opted for the measure upon which Australia recently decided. I quoted from the Australian House of Representatives' report in our debate on your Lordships' Select Committee report which we considered last Monday because it seemed to me the best statement on the current state of play in respect of matters of safety. The conclusion to that report, after a thorough examination of the evidence, was that, although the majority of studies suggested that
1190
eating irradiated food would do no harm, not all of them appeared to be reliable; a number of others indicated that it might be hazardous; there had been methodological problems in the safety trials; and further work had been recommended by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Irradiation. As a result of that, a three-year moratorium is now in force in Australia and the World Health Organisation has been asked to do more work on the safety aspects. That should provide a breathing space during which, among other things, the database in Karlsruhe to which I referred last week could be brought into some semblance of order; the evidence to date could be properly referenced and reviewed by anyone who wished to review it; and suspicions, if groundless, could be allayed, if need be by further trials.
I must now, alas, be confrontational on an issue on which I do not believe the noble Baroness has listened to us at all. Of the several committees that I quoted last week which are not convinced of the safety of food irradiation up to 10 kilograys, half were expert or technical bodies. I shall mention them again: the committee which reported to the Canadian Parliament in 1987; the American FDA; and the British Medical Association's Board of Science. It is an important point because the noble Baroness continues to stress that that is the only type of committee that one should take seriously.
Yet I would query even that assumption for two reasons. First, the parliamentary or other committees have, after all, access to the full range of scientific findings from all over the world and they question the scientists about their reports and compare expert with expert. They have all the scientific information and, in addition, they bring a wider perspective to bear on the issue. One might say that the scientists, where they do their job properly, provide the cleverness, and the broader committees, where they do their job properly, provide the wisdom. In the last analysis it is not for the experts to make the policy decisions.
That is just as well because my second reason is that the experts make such howling mistakes. If one wants to know why people are less and less inclined to take assurances of safety on trust, one has only to look at the track record of the experts. I have here in my hand a whole list of food substances which we were assured at one time were safe but which have now been banned because of the risks attached to them. Noble Lords have only to look at DDT, which used to be so widely recommended, and at lead in petrol. In 1980 the Lawther Committee was quite relaxed about it, and people in this country and abroad who continued to point to the evidence of harm were dismissed as cranks and scaremongers. As recently as 1982, a year after the Government's Chief Medical Officer had sounded a warning, an environment Minister said of some recent trials:
"Taken as a whole, the results reinforce the Government's view that levels of lead pollution in the environment give no cause for alarm".
It is one of the most noticeable features of the environmental scene, particularly in this country, that the scientific experts promote substances and techniques which later turn out to be unsafe. That is not always so, of course, but it occurs often enough

1191
to raise serious questions of judgment. It is like the accountants who cost projects such as Concorde, the Humber Bridge or the Channel Tunnel. We know that they will get it wrong by a mile, but next time they do it again, quite undaunted.
When scientists ask us once again to accept a process about which a sufficient number of people still have doubts to ring quite genuine warning bells, when they ask us to accept their largely unreferenced reports and when they do not tell us that their major database is in disarray for lack of cash, we are right to pause and to point out that a major health issue could be at stake and that it would be wise to resolve all the outstanding issues first. Whatever the noble Baroness may claim, there are outstanding issues. The trouble often arises in these cases through medical or political enthusiasm —the perfectly understandable desire to benefit people's health and to be seen to make a difference which can lead, especially when the pressure is on, to the shading of safety requirements.
It is time that we learnt the lesson of our mistakes of the past. In the present context a pause of three years is a sensible one to ask for; indeed, I believe that it is essential. I beg to move.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, although I cannot support the noble Earl's amendment in the way that it is framed, I agree with a great deal of what he says to support the amendment. We have had many opportunities in this House to discuss the process of irradiation. Unusually, a Select Committee of the House was set up to study irradiation between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. Much information has been given to us from those who took part in the debate on the Select Committee report.
It is quite clear that there are consumers who take an interest in food and food processes, particularly new food processes. There is a great deal of unease about the irradiation of food. That is not to say that most people think that it is unsafe. Various statements have been made by those who support the introduction of irradiation of food. Some say that it is absolutely safe, some that it is quite safe, some that it is entirely safe. There are even those who say that it is safe. Those statements raise certain anxieties in the minds of those who will buy those foods. People who decide not to buy them may be exposed to irradiated food when it is allowed to be sold in this country.
I disagree with the amendment of the noble Earl because what he is proposing by way of a three-year moratorium is going away from the path that we should be following, which is to act in concert with the other countries in the European Community. To follow the Australian example of a three-year moratorium would in a way be alarmist. Those of us who raise fears about this process have been accused of being alarmist, political and of being cranks. That is all water off a duck's back so far as I am concerned. However. I think that one has an obligation to the people of this country who have said through letters to the press, radio and television that they are not satisfied that it is safe to introduce this process, as proposed by the Government.
1192
I should prefer that the Government waited to see what was going to happen in other European countries, but we will discuss that topic later. I have enormous sympathy for the noble Earl but I cannot go down the path that he is traversing.
9 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am in favour of proceeding with irradiated food. It will not only be beneficial as a means of preserving food in this country, but when it has been tried, tested and used here regularly, it will eventually be of enormous benefit to people in the third world where so much grain deteriorates due to fungal infection. The grain could be preserved and eaten by people who would otherwise be starving.
I am so used to using gamma irradated equipment in my surgery that I do not have any hesitation about this process. I feel that people confuse radioactive substances with irradiated substances.
I am impressed by the proposition that there should be freedom of choice. People who do not wish to buy irradiated food should be able to make the choice, in the same way that people can choose to buy food that is organically grown. Whatever food one is buying, one should have a choice. However, I do not favour this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Falkland. I was on the sub-committee that considered this matter. The report of that committee was debated the other night. All fears that I had about radioactive dangers to the public have been totally laid to rest. At the same time, the experts at our own scientific institute said that not nearly enough work had been done on the effects on various foodstuffs. That is why we need to proceed with a certain amount of caution. There is no shadow of doubt in my mind that it is a good thing to irradiate spices. They are apparently produced in the most filthy surroundings that one could imagine. The chemical which has been used until now is very suspect.
Three years is an arbitrary figure which must be wrong when one takes into account the pace of scientific research. We should proceed in pace with our European partners. If we do not do so, many things will be out of step. If we have different regulations from the EC in 1992, then we will get into a mess. I have no objection to the Government producing the enabling legislation, but I have a great objection to them getting out of step with Europe, which this Government are rather apt to do. I think that to impose an arbitrary figure is quite wrong. Co-operation with Europe is not only desirable, it is essential; otherwise the regulations, the legislation and the labelling will go wrong.
I think that my noble friend's next amendment is the important and desirable one. However, I am very doubtful as to whether it should be discussed at this time of night. I am against this amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, presumably the effect of the noble Earl's amendment is that we will only agree with what Europe does in the next

1193
three years if we are not going to have irradiation of foodstuffs. If the European Community decide in the next year or two that irradiation of the products in the draft directive, etc., should be allowed, we would not be able to go along with that. Therefore we would be just as non-European as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is suggesting if we got off the ground first.
If the noble Earl is so alarmed by irradiation and does not want it at all, he should say so. He should be saying so to the European Community, by whatever means. To say that we will not implement the process for three years is not a good idea when a draft directive is on the table. I do not think that we should go along with that position.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, mother earth is not a very safe place on which to live: it has earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes etc. Among other things, we are all radioactive. The biggest dose that I am getting at the moment is from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. Tit for tat, he is getting it from me. We all get it from one another. Nothing dare, nothing do. We cannot perpetually put off decisions. Every year 5,000 people die on the roads, 5,000 people die in industrial accidents and 10,000 die in domestic accidents. I do not believe that any source of irradiation is likely to produce that result.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we debated food irradiation at length on Second Reading, in Committee and in our recent debate on the sub-committee's report on the irradiation of foodstuffs. I am therefore familiar with the concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. He in turn will know that the Government cannot accept the amendment; but I make no apology for repeating why the Government have concluded that food irradiation is safe and why we believe that it offers real public health benefits and should be permitted.
I listened to the noble Earl with great respect, even if he believes that I do not. However, I have to say that he castigates the scientific opinion of those who do not share his views and then quotes at me scientific opinion in his favour. For instance, he quoted the BMA. Perhaps I may in return quote back to him what was said in evidence by the Medical Research Council when it appeared before the sub-committee. I said that the public health implications of that approach were substantial, particularly in the case of poultry meat which at present is a major source of salmonella.
Food irradiation is the most extensively researched food process ever. It is found to be safe by expert scientific committees from the WHO, the FAO, the United States FDA and by all the international scientific committees which have considered it. That includes, of course, our own expert committee (the Advisory Committee on Irradiation and Novel Foods) which between 1982 and 1986 reviewed the evidence, taking advice from a number of our specialist expert committees on matters such as toxicology and nutrition. As I have said previously, the process is approved in 35 countries and is in commercial use in 20. The 13
1194
members of Sub-Committee D from all sides of the House who had the opportunity to take evidence from many quarters reached the same conclusion in their excellent report. They, like the Government, concluded that food irradiated up to a maximum dose was safe and wholesome.
Many spectres against irradiation have been raised in the course of our debate. We have heard some this evening. None of the issues are new. They have all been carefully considered by distinguished and independent committees. No credible evidence of adverse effects has been produced. With the noble Earl's approach, no new process would ever be approved.
In the recent "Horizon" television programme on food irradiation Professor Diehl from West Germany, an acknowledged world expert on the subject, was pressed on the question of demonstrating the absolute certainty that irradiation was safe. He responded by using the analogy of looking for ghosts. One can do as many experiments as one likes and never find anything, but one can never prove that they do not exist.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the Minister allow me—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, I think not. Time is going by. I have made it clear previously that our research programme on food irradiation will continue, but I believe that we have reached the point where we should stop looking for ghosts and proceed with introducing a process that offers real public health benefits.
The noble Earl once again referred to the Australian moratorium. As we discussed in Committee, the Australian circumstances were different. The decisions there was based on a parliamentary report rather than the recommendations of a scientific committee. In essence therefore it was a political decision. The Government, on the other hand, have accepted the great weight of scientific evidence in support of the safety of the process and concluded that consumers should be able to benefit from the improvement in food safety that irradiation can offer. Those benefits are real. Irradiation is particularly effective in killing salmonella, campylobacter and listeria. That means that it has a valuable part to play in combating the bacteria responsible for no less than 90 per cent. of the world's food borne illness. The WHO advises consumers to choose irradiated poultry meat where that is available. The Government are acting to make that choice available for our consumers. We are merely providing an additional option. No one need eat irradiated food unless they choose to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that we should not go ahead of the EC. I went all through that argument in Committee. If the noble Lord had read what I then said he would know the arguments. I shall therefore refrain from repeating them. I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment and that your Lordships are convinced by my arguments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether she accepts the reservations of Sub-Committee D on the effects on food? We totally accepted that irradiation would not produce any radioactivity effects, but we were entirely unsure of the effects on food and we thought there should be much more research on the effects.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have always maintained that research will continue. If the noble Lord had happened to read properly what was said at Committee stage he would have had that question already answered for him.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful for the limited support that I have received from the Benches opposite, although obviously it did not go as far as I would have liked. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, talked about the needs of the third world. There may well be a case there for food spoilage, but I myself object to being a guinea-pig in respect of what happens in the third world. If they want it there, by all means let them use it, but in my view we are arguing about this country and about what we do to our own people. That is a different point. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that if I was alarmed by it I should say so. I thought I had been saying so, rather like a gramophone record, for three of four weeks. My point was that not enough work had been done and that one was right to be alarmed about these things until the safety issues had been tidied up. We should not undertake research as we go along, as the noble Baroness suggested, but should do it beforehand and get it right first.
I am of course disappointed that, after a number of attempts to draw to the Minister's attention the worries of a large section of society, we seem to have made no progress. I do not want to pick up all the points made by the Minister because we shall then get into this "Yes I do, no you don't" argument that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, referred to earlier. He quite rightly steered clear of that: it is unproductive.
There is much more that I could say but at this stage and at this time of the evening I am bowing to the inevitable. I would just ask the Minister to accept that it has not been part of my aim, at any rate, to raise people's anxieties but rather to stave off yet another environmental error of the type we are all too prone to in this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert
("( ) No regulations under subsection (1)(c) above authorising the irradiation of food shall be made before the draft Directive on food and food ingedients treated with ionising radiation has been adopted by the Council of Ministers.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise for any inconvenience that may be caused by seeking to ungroup these three amendments. I have informed the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the Opposition Benches. I do not intend to
1196
move Amendment No. 52 but it may perhaps be acceptable for me to talk to Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 at the appropriate time.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert—
("(1A) The Minister or Secretary of State shall certify, in making any regulations made under subsections (1)(b) to (d) above in respect of the irradiation of food, that they conform so far as practicable to international standards of good manufacturing and agricultural practice and of generally applicable microbiological standards where developed")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to issues which we discussed in connection with Amendment No. 73 in Committee. That amendment drew attention to the principal recommendations of the World Health Organisation's international consultative group on food irradiation which were published in June 1989. The World Health Organisation recommended, as I indicated at col. 776 on 18th January 1990:
"Only foods produced under conditions of good agricultural and manufacturing practices … should be accepted for further processing, including irradiation. Further processing should not be used to disguise the consequences of poor hygiene.
"Microbiological guidelines should not be used as limits for regulatory action. Failure to meet such guidelines should direct attention to the manufacturing process and the establishing if necessary, of GMP."
In reply to the amendment, the noble Baroness indicated that she did not consider that the adoption of clear criteria for the use of the regulation power in Clause 16 was necessary. She said at col. 777 of the Official Report on 18th January 1990:
"Food for irradiation will have to comply with normal hygienic rules. In addition, we will require appropriate microbiological testing to ensure that it is of sound quality".
This amendment asks the Government to take on a general intention that, as international standards are established, regulations in this country should reflect those standards. In particular, the Minister drew attention to the finding of your Lordships' Select Committee that microbiological standards were not generally applicable at present and that general quality standards currently applied in other forms of food processing were the best means of ensuring that irradiated foods were of sound and good quality. The amendment accepts the logic of the Government's argument that detailed standards cannot in all cases be set at this stage, but asks them to accept that standards should be upgraded as international technology develops. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher —I may have missed it —was he also speaking to Amendment No. 54? They are grouped together.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I was not speaking to Amendment No. 54. The grouping that took place after I approved the list of grouping that I saw this morning is inappropriate. I have therefore moved Amendment No. 53. When we reach Amendment No. 54, I shall make a short speech in moving that amendment also.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. At Committee stage we debated the question of ensuring that the irradiation process is not abused. I said then —and I shall repeat it —that the Government will not allow irradiation to be used as a substitute for good manufacturing practice or as a means of upgrading unfit food. However, I do not believe that the amendment is helpful in this respect. The fundamental problem is that there are as yet no internationally agreed standards of good manufacturing and agricultural practice or microbiological standards for food for irradiation. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, indicated at Committee stage, the World Health Organisation has begun some useful work in this area of microbiological standards. But there are still many considerable practical difficulties to be resolved. I do not see how the Government could agree now to commit themselves to standards which have yet to be set.
There is a further point. The amendment assumes that any future standards for good manufacturing or agricultural practice should be embodied in regulations. But such standards are often more appropriate for codes of practice than for regulations. In short, although I can sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, I do not find it very practical. I note that the 35 countries that permit the use of this process have been happy to do so in advance of any agreement on microbiological standards that it might subsequently be possible to reach. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said on this important subject. I believe that the reference to the international consultative group of the World Health Organisation, to which I referred in moving the amendment, is entirely appropriate. I am partially reassured by the indication of the noble Baroness that the Government are conscious of the desirability of maintenance of standards but feel that these would be better taken care of in a code rather than in regulations.
I also noted that in reply to the preceding amendments she indicated that research on irradiation would continue. I hope that the basis of that research will be sufficiently broad to take account of the quality of food and the maintenance of microbiological standards as part of the irradiation scene. Having said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert —
("(1A) Any regulations made under subsection (1)(b) or (c) above in respect of the irradiation of food shall be concerned with the fitness of food before or after such treatment, and the licensing of radiological processes shall be undertaken by an independent person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with separating the effect of irradiation from the quality of food submitted for such treatment. We argue that the licensing of radiological
1198
processes necessary for irradiation should be undertaken by an independent person. We ask the Government to give views on these issues.
It has been evident from the debate on this issue that much of the concern about irradiation arises from its ability to disguise poor quality food, or food which has deteriorated, to prolong its life at the point of sale. For this purpose, regulations concerning food safety and the fitness of food are appropriate and may be made under powers contained in Clause 16. The amendment argues, however, that the issues concerned with licensing of radiological processes are larger than the scope of regulations likely to be put forward under the Bill. We ask the Government to state what proposals they will put forward to secure an independent oversight of the equipment and technology used in this area. We ask them to state whether any organisation such as the National Radiological Protection Board has been approached or asked to consider taking on this function. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. In discussion on the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord I dealt with the question of microbiological standards prior to irradiation. Therefore, my remarks are directed to the question of standards after irradiation. I remind the House that the Government are committed to a comprehensive range of licensing controls which will be imposed on the processor in order to ensure that treated foods are safe and wholesome. The key provisions of the framework that we envisaged are: a product specific, plant specific licence to irradiate; the inspection of facilities by experts before and regularly after the issue of a licence; and access for inspectors to the detailed records of dosimetry, which will be required to be maintained at the plant, in order to confirm that treatment has been correctly applied.
Furthermore, environmental health officers will continue with their normal food inspection role, including appropriate testing of foods after processing. Finally, irradiated food will be subject to the full food safety provisions of the Bill.
As regards the licensing of food irradiation, I find quite extraordinary the noble Lord's suggestion that one single power in a substantial Bill should not be exercised by enforcement authorities. I appreciate that evaluation of the safety of radiobiological processes should be a matter on which independent expert advice is taken by government. Indeed, that is precisely what we did in setting up our Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods. However, licensing is essentially an executive function; it is a matter of checking that a particular plant meets the necessary standard. I see no reason for that function to be placed in independent hands.
In its excellent report the Select Committee noted that already we have 10 irradiation plants in the United Kingdom treating a range of medical and domestic products. The registration and inspection of those plants is undertaken by central government. We intend to proceed similarly with food irradiation facilities.

1199
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply but I am not altogether reasssured by it. For example, she made a reference to "experts" but gave no indication of who they will be; whether they will be invited in their individual capacities or as experts because they are currently employed in organisations which have recognised expertise in the area.
There is a great deal of difference between the examination and inspection of the existing plants —and I have yet to discover whether, as they now stand, the existing plants are capable of irradiating food under the powers which the Minister intends taking under Clause 16. As the Minister indicated, their range of function is more limited than that which will rise when food for human consumption is being irradiated.
The idea that the licensing function must be part of a government job is not borne out by a whole host of cases where governments have delegated licensing functions over a wide area. At this time of night I do not propose to embark on a recital of where and what they are. Suffice it to say that it is common for governments to delegate that responsibility. It was the delegation of such responsibility to an impartial body —I mention the National Radiological Protection Board —which is at the heart of the amendment.
I have the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that in their determination to move ahead with this particular exercise the Government are prepared to cut corners. In my opinion, cutting corners does not constitute sound policy in an area where controversy reigns supreme, as undoubtedly it does in this sphere. However, the Minister has made her comments and I have taken note of them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved manuscript Amendment No. 54A:
Page 12, line 41, at end insert —
("( ) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall take all necessary actions to ensure that any meat product incorporating a gel containing blood enzymes must be clearly labelled with the words "Artifically Restructured Meat".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I first apologise to the House for having tabled a manuscript amendment this morning but it arose out of a matter which only came to my attention over the weekend. I must also apologise to the Minister and, indeed, to her officials for the fact that they were not advised this morning as I had arranged for them to be. That does not help me any more than it helps the Minister.
As I say, this matter arose out of something which came to my attention over the weekend in an article in the Guardian on Saturday, 10th February. The article was by Mr. James Erlichman, the consumer affairs correspondent. He wrote:
1200
"A blood gel developed to bind wounds in casualty wards is being used to turn meat scraps into 'steak'. Several British meat companies are understood to have successfully tested the process which has come from Holland. Meat scraps left in the gel reassemble in 12 hours and can be sold either in fresh slab form or cut up and cooked in prepared meat products. The Ministry of Agriculture said that it has no objection to the blood gel meat being on sale,"—
and I understand that situation—
"although they say it must be labelled 'to ensure that consumers are adequately informed of their true nature and means of production'".
That is what this amendment is about; namely, to ensure precisely that. The article continues:
"Whitehall sources suggest, however" —
and I do not know who they are—
"that adequate labelling is unlikely. The meat industry, fearing consumer resistance".—
and I can understand why that should be so —
"is likely to argue that disclosure is unnecessary because all the blood gel components are found naturally in the flesh of animals".
I am sorry to deal with this matter immediately after supper.
This is obviously a method of selling scraps at inflated prices. I have here a quotation from the Meat Trades Journal of 19th October 1989 which is headed:
"Gel to bind meat trimmings developed in Holland".
The article reads:
"The revolutionary idea, uses a gel containing enzymes from blood to bind together trimmings to create a uniform product that has almost identical visual properties to fresh meat and can be handled and prepared in the same way as normal meat. The inventors at the Dutch Institute of Meat Technology claim that the materials will add 30 pence kg, but will allow butchers to boost their profits on the meat used by 50 per cent. The Institute have developed a kit which will allow the process to be carried out in the shop, bringing meat restructuring into small scale manufacturing for the first time".
I am glad to see that the chairman of the Refreshment Committee is sitting in his place.
The article continues:
The institute anticipate a take up of the process with large scale manufacturers".
The institute's head of meat technology Ernest Paardekooper said:
"A potential obstacle to the commercial application of the new binding process could be consumer resistance to the use of blood products although these are perfectly safe if only fresh meat is used. Our biggest problem will be finding a new name to label products from this new process".
My amendment assists in that process. They should be called, in my view, "Artificially Restructured Meat".
Mr. Paardekooper is also quoted in the Guardian article to which I referred proviously:
"He said yesterday that natural clotting agents in the blood, including fibrinogen and thrombin, create a mesh-like structure which enables wounds to close … Mr. Paardekooper said that his remoulded meat closely resembled fresh steak."
I have no objection to eating black puddings; indeed, I was born within 12 or 15 miles of Bury, Lancashire, where the best black puddings in the world come from. However, when I am buying steak I do not want to buy black puddings. I am not suggesting that these are precisely like black puddings, but there is a certain similarity. However, I want to be able to

1201
tell which is which, especially if it is served to me in a restaurant. What a temptation this must be to a restaurateur. It will only be possible to tell this meat from steak sold in the normal way if it is properly labelled.
Mr. Maclean, the honourable gentleman in another place in the department of the noble Baroness, said in a Written Answer to my honourable friend the Member for Truro:
"Meat products offered for sale have to comply with the provisions of the Food Act 1984, the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 and the Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984. Meat products made using the techniques mentioned would have to be carefully labelled so as to ensure that consumers are adequately informed of their true nature". —[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/90; col. 217.]
That ties up to a degree with what the noble Baroness said in reply to my noble friend Lord Falkland in the Committee stage of the Bill when he spoke about mechanically recovered meat. She said:
"In any case it is not possible for the UK unilaterally to introduce specific labelling rules on MRM since food labelling legislation is harmonised throughout the European Community". —[Official Report, 18/1/90; col. 758.]
However, I understand again from the Guardian article that the Dutch authorities insisted on labelled declarations for retail sale in the shops of this product. The noble Baroness, again at col. 758, went on to say:
"the food labelling regulations require precise names to be given both to the food and to the food ingredients to enable them to be distinguished from products with which they might be confused".
Again I suggest that the amendment offers a certain amount of help in that direction. What I am really saying is that people must know what they are buying. Once again it is the cowboy we are frightened of and not the genuine retailer or wholesaler.
I wonder whether the food labelling regulations cover this new product and I shall be glad to hear from the Minister whether they do. In any case one wonders if the present law is working properly. It is true that in July 1989 Mr. Bernard Matthews —of whom people will doubtless have heard through his television adverts —and his company were fined for not labelling mechanically recovered meat. He subsequently labelled his meat appropriately and is continuing to do so. Others, however, are continuing not to label properly and the only way trading standards officers can enforce the law is to prosecute on a regular basis. That is a slow and tedious way of doing it and I wonder whether the Government are satisfied with that mechanism.
I understand that negotiations are continuing between trading standards officers and meat traders, but so far no agreement has been reached. I should be glad to know from the Minister at some stage whether any progress is being made on this subject.
I have included in the amendment a suggested label, which was coined by my honourable friend in another place, of "Artificially Restructured Meat". I personally believe it should be called "bits of meat glued together with blood plasma", so that people really understand what they are buying. However, the product must be clearly labelled and not with euphemisms like the recent inclusion of the words
1202
"meat tenderiser" when one means that enzymes have been injected into the beast before it is slaughtered. I do not believe that the answer to my noble friend Lord Falkland given in Committee adequately covers this new phenomenon. There must be some way of including more specific provisions than those in Clause 15(1). They should be included in the regulations made under Clause 16.
I recognise that the noble Baroness has not had time fully to consider this. I believe it to be a serious matter. I do not intend to press the amendment to the limit tonight. But I hope that she can find some way of looking at it in perhaps a little more depth than I have given her time to do. I apologise for the short notice, but it only came over the horizon on Saturday as far as I am concerned. It is a serious matter which should go on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I indicated when speaking in favour of Amendment No. 48, I believe that the public have an absolute right not be cheated. In other words they have an absolute right not to be deceived into buying food or anything else which is not what it appears to be. Therefore I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the noble Baroness rises to reply, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whether the word "artificially" is otiose. Can he give me an example of naturally restructured meat?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I pose a question either to the Minister or to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Is the blood species specific? The noble Lord referred to animal blood. It is extremely important to know the answer. One assumes that it is the blood of cattle which is used to reconstruct the steak. In view of all the scares that are around at the moment it is important to know whether the blood is species specific.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has given me an entirely new perception of the expression Dutch treat. The whole matter has come to me as a very nasty shock. I appreciate very much the noble Lord's apology.
I believe that this kind of detail is not appropriate to the Bill. The technique to which the amendment refers has recently been developed abroad, as the noble Lord said, but I have no information as to whether it is used in the UK. Labelling rules already require that where a foodstuff has been subjected to any particular process, the omission of which might mislead the consumer, details of that process should be included in the labelling of the product. The use of this substance will also have to appear in the ingredients list of any meat product.
I venture to suggest that if a restaurateur sold this product as steak he would be falling foul of the law. I hazard a fairly firm guess on that score. I am not sufficiently familiar with the process to say whether the description which the noble Lord has put into the amendment is proper for the production or

1203
sufficiently informative to consumers. I have some doubts about that. I am also slightly doubtful about believing absolutely everything that the Guardian says.
The EC labelling rules do not allow us to impose extra labelling requirements without first submitting them to Brussels for discussion and agreement by member states. That is a further reason why I cannot accept this amendment. I believe this to be a technical matter which is better fully discussed by the appropriate technical experts before any legislation about it is proposed or considered.
I would be happy to talk about the matter with the noble Lord at any time—preferably not just after dinner —so that we could take up the matter elsewhere if the need arose. Otherwise, one will be dealing with soya cutlets and heaven knows what before one knows where one is. The matter is too detailed for the Bill.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for some glimmer of hope in her reply. Having been weaned on the Guardian, I am less cynical about it than she is. On this occasion the Guardian, is probably right. When I read this against the quotation from the Meat Trade Journal, I think that factually the Guardian is correct on this occasion.
I am happy to meet the noble Baroness at any time, not necessarily to talk about ghastly things like this. There is something different here. We are not just talking about products which are adulterated with cereals, bone or something like that. It is clearly a genuine attempt by the manufacturers to make something look like something that it is not. Because of that, I am highly suspicious of it.
I hear what the noble Baroness says on the labelling question in relation to the European Community, but apparently the Dutch have got around this. The Dutch are insisting on their restaurateurs using special labels. I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, says about tautology but I do not stand by the absolute wording of the amendment. I would much prefer it to be clearer to consumers that they are being offered a very strange product.
Clearly I shall not press the amendment tonight. I hope that the Minister, her colleagues and her officials will look more deeply into the matter. It is a matter of considerable concern that the public will be offered something which is not what it is seeking to buy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 12, line 42, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 46 and insert —

("(a) for securing the observance of hygienic conditions and practices in connection with the carrying out of commercial operations with respect to contact materials which are intended to come into contact with food intended for human consumption;

(b) for imposing requirements or prohibitions as to, or otherwise regulating, the labelling, marking or advertising
1204
of such materials, and the descriptions which may be applied to them; and

(c) otherwise for prohibiting or regulating the carrying out of commercial operations with respect to such materials.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 13, line 4, at end insert—
("(4A) Before making any regulations under this section authorising the irradiation of food, the Ministers shall have particular regard to any representations made to them in consulting affected interests under section 26 concerning the effects of irradiation on the appearance of agricultural or horticultural produce.
(4B) Before making any regulations under this section concerning the sale of food by food businesses, the Ministers shall have regard to the extent to which, in their opinion, it would be practicable for food businesses to make detailed declarations of the sources of food and any processes to which it as been subjected.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised a similar point in Committee and quoted the example of mushroooms, though the principle of appearance or lack of appearance because of irradiation could apply to other vegetables. My noble friend replied sympathetically but my horticultural advisers who have looked at her answer are still concerned that appearance and freshness are vitally important to their selling and promoting fresh vegetables. They would like an assurance from my noble friend that this point will be taken into account before regulations are made.
They are concerned in this context with the appearance angle. With mushrooms, there is a discolouration problem. Indeed my noble friend was kind enough to write to me after the Committee stage to admit that this was so. She also stated that producers would not have to use irradiation if they did not want to. But as 85 per cent. of mushrooms are sold loose, irradiated mushrooms could well be included by accident or by an unscrupulous trader who might be short of mushrooms on that day. I hope therefore that my noble friend can give an assurance, first, that appearance will be taken into consideration before irradiation is allowed; secondly, that no irradiated vegetable will ever be described as fresh; and, thirdly, that irradiated produce will always be sold in sealed and clearly marked containers.
If my noble friend can answer those three points in the affirmative, I shall certainly be perfectly happy. However, I shall leave to my noble friend Lord Montgomery the task of defining how such provisions should be enforced. I beg to move.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord Stanley, I should like to approach the problem from a slightly different angle. The matter was raised in Committee and my noble friend on the Front Bench responded, as always, with great courtesy. She was kind enough to write to me after the debate. Unfortunately, I am sorry to say, her reply, courteous though it was, did not entirely answer the question.

1205
I should like to narrow the matter down a little this evening to deal with the issue of the labelling of products as it affects people in restaurants. Of course consumers need to be protected. However, most of the protection for consumers in this legislation has been directed towards the retail trade and has not been concerned with precisely what may or may not happen in restaurants. There has been a good deal of reference this evening to products in restaurants and what happens to them. Indeed, this was referred to when we discussed Amendment No. 54A, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. When one is in a restaurant one has to take a good deal on trust. The important factors are appearance and taste; indeed, they are of overriding importance. Of course, the other aspect is safety.
I have a particular concern as regards the Select Committee's report on irradiation. The noble Baroness has referred to this several times today. However, such reports tend to be thought of as being somewhat "gospel". Paragraph 124 recommends that:
"menus should state which dishes contain irradiated ingredients".
I know that the noble Baroness is concerned about the protection of consumers —and that is totally plausible —as is the restaurant industry. But the ingredients currently used in restaurants may be organic, chemically sprayed, frozen, microwaved, pasteurised and now irrradiated. In none of those cases is it required to state what has happened to the product on its way to the restaurant. Why then should this be the case with irradiated products? Either irradiation is safe —at least, we have been assured that that is so in the various debates we have had this evening —in which case there should be no requirement for it to be mentioned on menus; or it is not safe, in which case it would be wholly improper for it to be registered because people would not want to know about it in any event. Therefore it is not right for it to be mentioned specifically on menus. I am quite certain, although one speaker said earlier this evening that this was in fact to be the case in Holland, that it will not be the case in other countries in the Community.
I cannot see the French, who are probably the gastronomic leaders of the Western world —followed closely these days, I am glad to say, by Britain, thanks to the efforts of the various associations promoting the restaurant business and higher standards of gastronomy —falling in with this. Such arrangements would hardly be acceptable in the circumstances.
Therefore when the noble Baroness says, as she has in the past, that there is to be full consultation with all interested parties about the matter, I hope that that is really what she means. Frequently in these instances consultation means; "This is what we are going to do; I hope you will accept it and get on with it". Of course, that is not what consultation really means. We want the people who actually have to purvey food, be it in restaurants, hotels, cafés, bars or any other place where food is consumed, including sandwich bars and kiosks on railway stations, to be allowed to have a say in what should
1206
or should not appear on the labelling. Otherwise the whole business of consumer protection will run riot and become completely ludicrous. Therefore it will not be regarded as a serious endeavour. In those circumstances I support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in his efforts, though I accept that the wording of the amendment would not necessarily achieve its object. We seek reassurance from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot accept this amendment. Perhaps I may deal with the proposed new subsection (4A) and begin by making a general point. Of course Ministers will take full account of all representations made to them in relation to any regulations authorising food irradiation. That is the purpose of consultation. But it would be quite wrong to provide in the Bill that one particular issue should take precedence over all the others.
On the general question of the possible effect of irradiation on the appearance of produce, we have to distinguish between what might be termed "quality" and the more fundamental questions of safety and nutritional value. Perhaps I may divert to answer some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Montgomery. First, the French already apply irradiation. Secondly, I think I am right that he said that either irradiation was safe, in which case it seems unnecessary to bother to label it; or if it was not safe, blah, blah, blah. I say that it is not a matter of safety in this context but, as we have said all the way through, a matter of consumer choice. I doubt whether the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will ever eat irradiated food, but he should have the choice. It is not a question of safety but of choice.
Perhaps we may return to mushrooms. As I made clear to the House at Committee stage, there are no doubts on the latter score. Irradiated mushrooms have been evaluated by the experts and are as safe and wholesome as other irradiated foods. However, if we accept that there is a problem with discolouring, there is a parallel with frozen mushrooms. Freezing, with the associated pre-treatment, causes mushrooms to brown and affects their taste. In consequence, most people prefer fresh mushrooms and the frozen market is small. But I am sure that no one would suggest that the freezing of mushrooms should be banned. Safety and wholesomeness are matters for the Government. But appearance and taste are matters for the food industry to resolve.
Turning to the proposed new subsection (4B), perhaps I may make a general point. This Government always take account of the practicability of any measure we propose. We do not need a special provision for this purpose. Mushrooms would not have to be wrapped. But, as regards any food sold loose, we are committed to introducing additional labelling rules to ensure that consumers can exercise freedom of choice. We recognise that there are difficulties in this area but I can assure your Lordships that irradiated mushrooms would not normally be regarded as fresh. We are thus consulting widely on the best way of presenting the information about irradiation

1207
treatment to consumers who buy food sold in this way. Practical considerations will be fully taken into account in the arrangements we propose.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have tried to listen to my noble friend. For the life of me I cannot understand why she could not give me the three assurances for which I asked. She came back to the question of safety but that is not the point that I and my noble friend were making. Our point concerned the appearance problem. I do not understand why the noble Baroness gave me the
1208
answer that she did, it would have been easy for her to say, yes, they would consult on these three points.
I shall leave the matter for now. Perhaps it will be taken up in another place. I am not happy. I think that appearance matters and it does not seem to me that the Government have seized the slight difference. This is not a matter of safety but of colour. The subject of freezing is totally irrelevant as regards irradiation because irradiation probably cannot be recognised by the buyer, whereas freezing can. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Clause 17 [Enforcement of Community provisions]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No.59:
Page 13, line 10, leave out second ("or") and insert ("including in particular provision for prohibiting or regulating").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Registration and licensing of food premises]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No.
60:
Page 14, line 18, at beginning insert ("subject to subsection (2) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the brief debate we had in Committee which concerned the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury which was designed to restrict the licensing power in Clause 19. I undertook to take the point away to see whether we could go some way towards meeting his concerns, which had received support on both sides of the House. I have considered the point carefully and I am pleased to be able to move this government amendment. It introduces into Clause 19 the formula that already appears in Clause 16(1)(f) to constrain the general regulation-making powers there. It makes clear that Ministers can only use the licensing powers in Clause 19 in order to secure food safety in the interests of public health or for protecting or promoting consumers' interests.
I believe that this will make it absolutely clear that the licensing powers are not to be used arbitrarily. I believe that was the concern of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is not here but the staff of his office have discussed the provision with the staff of my office and he is satisfied with the wording that we have proposed. Frankly, we would have proposed that wording whatever his office staff had said; however, they were quite pleased with it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No.
61:
Page 14, line 21, at end insert—
("(2) The Ministers shall exercise the power conferred by subsection (1)(b) above only where it appears to them to be necessary or expedient to do so —

(a) for the purpose of securing that food complies with food safety requirements or in the interests of the public health; or

(b) for the purpose of protecting or promoting the interests of consumers.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No.62:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Defence of unavoidable consequence.
(" . In proceedings under section 15(1) above in respect of any food containing some extraneous matter it is a defence to prove that the presence of that matter was an unavoidable consequence of the process of collection or preparation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that on page 10 of the Marshalled List there are two printing errors on line 2. The word "collection" is spelt incorrectly and the word "of' should be "or".
On this first occasion that I have been able to rise to my feet I wish to thank my noble friend the Minister and her noble friend Lady Hooper for a fairly large exchange of letters on a number of matters contained in the Bill and for subsequent discussions which have been helpful to me and to those who advise me. I hope they have been helpful also to my noble friend.
In this amendment we return to the question of the retailer's defence of unavoidable consequence. That was discussed under Amendment No. 100 in Committee in January. I return to the matter because I have two worries. The first worry is that Clause 7(1) of the Bill may bring within its scope the natural constituents of a food such as pieces of crushed fruit skin or perhaps the kernel or even, in the case of canned fruit, a fragment of fruit stone. In the case of fish it might be bones and so on. Manufacturers' and retail specifications for such products allow for those natural parts of the product to be present up to a certain limit because it is virtually impossible to exclude them entirely.
Two issues are involved. First, United Kingdom production tends to be of a very high specification, perhaps higher than in some other producing countries. I suggest that the way in which the Bill is framed may promote a challenge on the grounds of a barrier to trade if those natural items are to be excluded. Secondly, if they are considered to be injurious to health rather than a natural part of the food, any excess of such ingredients might more appropriately be an offence under Clause 14 of the Bill. However, the matter might be dealt with under Clause 8(2)(c).
It is neither sensible nor, even with the greatest expertise, possible to exclude everything other than the product —the piece of fish or fruit. Therefore, it seems to me that as it stands the Bill does not provide for a perfectly reasonable defence or take into account the question of international trade barriers. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this amendment repeats the proposal made by my noble friend at Committee stage. I have not changed one bit my view that it is unnecessary.
I understand that my noble friend fears that a manufacturer whose products unavoidably contain on occasion some extraneous matter of natural origin might risk prosecution under the major offence provisions in Clause 7(1) and Clause 8(2)(c). In the unlikely event of a prosecution being taken, the defendant would have little difficulty relying on the due diligence defence. The fact that a bone was found to have been left in a can of fish would not reasonably lead an enforcement authority to the conclusion that the fish had been rendered injurious to health. Nor would it conclude that it was so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to

1211
expect it to be used for human consumption in that state. If a prosecution were to be contemplated it would most probably be on the grounds that the food was not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser.
It is the Government's view that if the food's only defect is matter resulting unavoidably from the manufacturing process such a prosecution should not stick. The due diligence defence should ensure that. My noble friend's suggested amendment, on the other hand, might not prove sufficient.
The amendment would reinstate the defence in Section 3(2) of the Food Act 1984. I think that we are all now familiar with the case of the caterpillar in the tin of peas (Smedley v. Breed) but it bears repeating. In that case the defendant was able to demonstrate that his manufacturing methods were of the highest quality but was convicted, despite deploying that defence which my noble friend wishes to re-enact. That was because he could not convince the court that the presence of the caterpillar was an unavoidable consequence of the manufacturing process which was designed to exclude such objects. That result did not seem fair but was the legally correct determination of the case. I am sure that, under the defence in Clause 21, the defendant would have been acquitted on the evidence. I think that that is as far as I want to go on this point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I wonder what else she perhaps has to tell us.
I accept what my noble friend says and am most grateful to her for setting out the Government's hope and intention. However, at the end of the day, the matter depends on the court. Perhaps my noble friend will write to me regarding the trade barrier that we might inadvertently create for ourselves. We should not like to find that the Bill brings us a challenge at a later date. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Orders for facilitating the exercise of functions]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert —
("(4) In subsection (3) above the reference to a disclosure being necessary for the purposes of this Act includes a reference to it being necessary—

(a) for the purpose of securing that food complies with food safety requirements or in the interests of the public health; or

(b) for the purpose of protecting or promoting the interests of consumers;

and the reference to a disclosure being necessary for the purposes of any corresponding enactment in force in Northern Ireland shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government are committed to freedom of information wherever possible. I am not aware that the existing provision in Clause 25, which appears in the Food Act 1984, has ever caused problems. However, in the light of concern expressed at
1212
Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and others, I undertook to look again at the wording of this clause. Having done so, I am now happy to move the amendment which, I believe, will put the matter beyond any doubt.
The amendment clarifies the circumstances in which Ministers can direct disclosure of information obtained by order under Clause 25. These are when disclosure is necessary not only to ensure food safety, but also if it is in the interests of public health or to protect or promote consumers' interests.
I believe that the clause as amended would strike a proper balance between the legitimate need to protect trade secrets which pose no threat to public health and the public's right to information. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am more than grateful to the noble Baroness. She has not only taken note of the amendment which I and other noble Lords moved in Committee, but she has taken note of the intention of the amendment, which is probably more important. In doing so, she has widened the scope of the amendment. I recognise that its scope is narrowed in the sense that the matter is now entirely in the hands of the Minister, but I cannot believe that any Minister of any administration, now or in the future, would possibly conceal from the public the kind of information which we are discussing. To do so would be foolish and not in his or her interest, let alone the public's interest.
In adding to our original amendment, even though in a slightly different place, the noble Baroness has succeeded in going right to the heart of the matter. She rightly says that it achieves the correct balance between maintaining trade secrets which, as we said in Committee, we certainly have no intention of undermining, and at the same time protecting the public interest. I am most grateful to the Minister for the consideration that she and her officials have shown in discussing the matter. I certainly support the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to add my words of thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, as my name was also to the amendment tabled in Committee and I, too, spoke to the amendment. We are extremely grateful that the noble Baroness listened to us and has returned with the right amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regulations and orders: supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 17, line 39, after first ("appeal") insert ("(including costs)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have been urged to spell out the tribunal procedures in more detail. I do not regard that as appropriate in primary legislation; instead, the detail will be spelled out in regulations. However, I accept that it is right to make it clear that regulations providing for an appeal should also deal with the question of award of costs. It is important therefore to ensure that the enabling power allows this procedure. The amendment is intended to do that and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Appointment of public analysts]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Procurement of samples]:
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 18, line 41, leave out from ("authority") to ("may") in line 44.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that at Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, proposed that Clause 29(1) be amended so that authorised officers could procure samples for investigation in addition to analysis or examination. As the use of the term "investigation" would have introduced a new concept into the provisions of the Bill concerning analysis and examination, we opposed that amendment but agreed to consider whether there was a need to ensure that enforcement authorities could take samples for a purpose other than analysis or examination.
Having reflected on this matter, we consider that examination and analysis must be the main purposes of sampling. However, we can see a possible need in certain circumstances for enforcement authorities to take samples for a reason other than those two. For example, it may be necessary to use a fruit expert to substantiate whether a variety of apple is the variety which it claims to be, and it may not be necessary to use the expertise of a public analyst or food examiner simply to see, taste or smell whether the quality of a food has deteriorated.
The amendment takes account of that situation by removing the constraints on enforcement officers to procure samples only for analysis or examination. We recognise that it is necessary to ensure that the status of the public analyst and the food examiner is not undermined. I do not see this as a real problem. The role of analysis and examination and the status of those who practise these techniques are not reduced in prominence by the amendment. Their
1214
work will continue to be central to the enforcement effort and the courts will continue to place considerable emphasis on the results. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Minister has produced an elegant solution to the problem. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the House will remember that at Committee stage I concentrated my amendments on two aspects of the matter. One aspect concerned the qualifications of examiners and the other the status of public analysts. I have received a most helpful letter from the noble Baroness from which I should like to quote two sentences. The first states:
"It is essential that the food examiner is properly qualified".
The noble Baroness goes on to say:
"Most of those currently responsible for examining food in the public health service laboratories … are medically or scientifically qualified microbiologists specialising in food microbiology. These qualifications will obviously form the starting point during the consideration of the issue".
That letter is most helpful and I accept the assurance of the noble Baroness that this matter will be handled in a responsible manner.
I am less happy about Amendment No. 67 because it omits a whole chunk of the original Bill which reads:
"An authorised officer of an enforcement authority may exercise such powers of procuring samples for analysis or examination as are conferred on him by this section."
The Association of Public Analysts is unhappy about this matter because it feels that a third class of authority is being invoked; namely, someone who is not a judge because he is not scientifically qualified to conduct analysis. I very much regret the excision from the Bill of that original paragraph in Clause 29. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will restore it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am not sure whether I have to say "with the leave of the House", but in reply to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, perhaps I might just say that authorised officers intent on prosecution will still have to use qualified public analysts to carry out an analysis and food examiners to carry out examinations. Courts will still expect to see a certificate as to the result of such analysis or examination whenever appropriate.
The amendment should make no change to the position of public analysts or food examiners. Far from wishing not to honour those people who do such valuable work on behalf of the nation's consumers, I should like to use the opportunity to praise their work and expertise.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for doing that, but there is still the residual anxiety in my mind that we are handing over responsibility for saying that something should be analysed to someone who is not trained to do that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Analysis etc. of samples]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 19, line 15, leave out ("by the public analyst for the area in which it was procured") and insert ("either —

(i) by the public analyst for the area in which the sample was procured; or

(ii) by the public analyst for the area which consists of or includes the area of the authority").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that in Committee I agreed in principle with the substance of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to enable enforcement officers to use a public analyst in their home area to analyse samples taken in other areas. The government amendment will have that effect and will also enable enforcement authorities to use the public analyst for the area in which the sample was procured where that is not the authority's own area. The choice is the authority's. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. She has produced an amendment which entirely meets the point which I raised in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 19, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment, together with the others standing in my name (Amendments Nos. 71 to 88), relate to the point about which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was speaking; that is, whether the concept of a food examiner dilutes the role of the public analyst. It is similar to the discussion that we have just heard. Again, I should like to be reassured that the food examiner is not a dilution of that role and that the public analyst and the high standard of qualification, especially for microbiological examination, will be maintained. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the effect of these amendments would be to remove from the Bill all references to microbiological examination and to food examiners. There would then be no statutory backing for the activity of microbiological examination. That is a different and separate activity from the chemical analysis of food. Both tasks require a high level of experience, competence and expertise. The fact that the tasks are separate does not of course mean that they cannot be undertaken by the same person, assuming he or she is appropriately qualified in both disciplines.
Most microbiological examination of food is undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service. Enforcement officers may also submit samples to laboratories run by local authorities or to privately run laboratories for examination. The reason that we have expanded the provisions on food examination in the Bill is to ensure that those who undertake it are suitably qualified and that their competence cannot be put into doubt by a court. The provisions mirror those relating to public analysts. There is absolutely no intention of detracting from
1216
the powers and competences of the public analysts in any way. As I said earlier, some public analysts also carry out microbiological examinations, and they may continue to do so, assuming that they hold the qualifications which we intend to prescribe for food examiners.
I hope that, in view of this explanation, your Lordships will recognise the importance of making provision in the Bill for the activity of microbiological examination and for ensuring that it is carried out to the highest standards. I hope that with this assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply and I am pleased she has confirmed that the high standards will be maintained. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 88 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Powers of entry]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 21, line 3, after ("contravention") insert ("or any evidence of any contravention").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised an amendment on these lines at the Committee stage. As I then promised, I have had a look at it and have decided that my noble friend's answer was not really satisfying my concern. I therefore have tried to tidy up the amendment to make it rather better, and I have really strengthened my argument.
The food industry are very concerned that there is a risk to what is called the "home authority" principle, which could be undermined if an officer, without due cause, can inspect a factory outside his own area. This amendment seeks to support and strengthen the application of the home authority principle in consumer protection cases and to limit activity outside the authority's own area to that concerned with food injurious to health —that is connected with Clause 7, to which reference is made in the amendment —with food that fails to comply with food safety requirements (Clause 8) and with emergency prohibition notices (Clause 12).
Perhaps it might help your Lordships if I explained what the home authority principle is. It is a well-established administrative procedure whereby any business, irrespective of its size or number of outlets, may look for guidance to a single enforcement authority. That is very important in order to make sure that they get a common practice of treatment from environmental health officers or trading standards officers right across the country.
One can imagine that a large food manufacturing company with factories all over the country would find it very important for them not to get different treatment in this whole area of food safety from the various officers or authorities in different parts of the country where their factories are. So by agreement with those bodies, they have established the home authority principle, and normally the home

1217
authority which makes a common decision to spread to the other trading standards officers or environmental health officers is the one where the business's headquarters is based or where their final labelling, advertising, quantity or quality control decisions are taken. It does not really matter where it is provided that it is a standard place, and that is generally agreed. Such an arrangement serves to strengthen and streamline the links between industry and enforcement. It is therefore very important from the point of view of the efficiency of the business that this principle is not undermined.
I come back to what I was saying when everybody else was having dinner, except of course for the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who was there to hear me. The most vital thing—
Baroness Trumpington: I too was there.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I did not think so. However, the most vital thing we in this country need today is the efficiency of manufacturing business in order to create the wealth on which everything else depends. Arrangements like the home authority principle are absolutely vital for that sort of purpose. Therefore I hope that, although my noble friend resisted my amendments at an earlier stage, this particular improved amendment, and the principle behind it, may be accepted by my noble friend, because it is really much more vital than perhaps I was able to make clear when we discussed this in Committee. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree to my noble friend's amendment. I cannot agree that we should limit these powers of entry in the way proposed.
I am glad that following discussion at Committee stage my noble friend has accepted the need for enforcement officers to be able to enter premises outside their own area in connection with the food safety provisions of the Bill. However, his amendments, if accepted, would prevent enforcement officers following up any consumer protection offences or contraventions of any regulations or orders made under the Bill. As many of our controls will in fact be in regulations I could not accept this. Nor do I see why we should distinguish between food safety and consumer protection offences. It may, for example, be necessary for enforcement officers to cross borders to check the accuracy of an organic label by visiting a farm in a different area. Moreover, it may sometimes be difficult to establish immediately whether a suspected offence relates to food safety or consumer protection —for example, the case of wine contaminated by diethlylene glycol. Enforcement officers must have adequate powers to follow up such cases.
Perhaps I may, however, take this opportunity to try and reassure my noble friend. Enforcement officers can only exercise their powers of entry in the course of their statutory duties.
1218
Clause 32(1)(b) is narrower than Clause 32(1)(a) and justifiably so. An enforcement officer operating outside his own area has to be investigating a problem originating in his own area. Moreover enforcement officers would have regard to the proper use of the resources of their authorities, and would concentrate primarily on their own areas. As I explained at Committee stage, we anticipate that enforcement officers operating outside their own area should be obliged to notify the food authority of the area entered giving reasons for doing so. This would probably be achieved in one of the codes of practice referred to in Clause 39.
The operation of the home authority principle is relevant to matters such as food labelling or food quality, neither of which are within the scope of my noble friend's amendment. Moreover, the home authority system already provides for consultation between the investigating authority and the home authority before proceedings are commenced. But that cannot override the need for the investigating authority to collect evidence from wherever that evidence may be available, whether inside or outside its area. The LACOTS scheme is concerned with trading standards and consumer protection, not environmental health —for instance, hygiene issues. I hope that my explanation has suited my noble friend.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am not sure about that. I was delighted that in the end my noble friend came round on the home authority principle. However, I do not think she gave it the importance that she might have done. It may not be appropriate to pursue this point at Third Reading. If that is so, I suspect that it may be necessary to do something in another place. However, I am not altogether happy with what my noble friend has said. I shall have to read carefully what the noble Baroness has said and then decide what to do next. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 21, line 35, after ("records") insert ("relevant to his duties").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to the one that I moved in Committee. I was intrigued to note that my noble friend Lady Hooper, who replied on that occasion. said that the word "relevant" was most important in this area. Therefore, we have included "relevant" in the revised amendment following her guidance.
It is presumed that an authorised officer would have access only to relevant records (it is most important that that should be so)—in other words, those specifically related to his duties under the Act. Surely it cannot be intended that an officer should have unrestrained access to all records of a food business, including personnel records. The wording of the Bill as it now stands could be interpreted as allowing him to do so. Clause 33(1) appears to provide the officer with adequate authority to inspect all relevant material.
I suggest again that it is important to ensure that there can be no doubt in people's minds when they are carrying out such inspections that they must be relevant to the duties for which they are employed. I do not believe that my amendment would be particularly harmful to the Bill or to the principle upon which the clause is drafted. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we discussed this issue in Committee and I am afraid we still believe that the amendment is unnecessary. This is a highly technical matter, but I am assured that there are sound legal reasons for not making an explicit reference to "relevant".
To my mind much the most telling is the concern that if we make such a reference in this Bill it will have a knock-on effect on other legislation. If Parliament decides in its wisdom that "relevant" is necessary here, then similar provision in parallel legislation would be necessary; for example, in Section 29 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. That section also refers to "records" rather than "relevant records". If this amendment is accepted, there is a danger that the courts will construe that section as though any records held by the business could be inspected or seized even if they were not relevant. This is not what any of us want. I am, however, extremely grateful to my noble friend for drawing my attention to this issue and giving me the opportunity of exploring the point with my officials.
Clause 32(1) of the Bill restricts the powers of entry of authorised officers to purposes connected with contraventions of the Bill or regulations made under it. Power to examine records arises only when the officer is exercising these powers of entry, as is made clear by the opening words of subsection (5). It follows that the power to examine records is similarly restricted to those connected with such possible contraventions. It is therefore unnecessary to make any such restriction in the Bill. If the authorised officer was to ask to see records which were unconnected with the contravention under investigation, such as tax records, the food manufacturer or trader would be entirely within his rights in refusing such access.
I understand my noble friend's concern but I hope that this explanation will satisfy him.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I think it does. I take it that in the event that an officer exceeds his duties, the food manufacturer could sue the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for doing something which is more than "relevant". If I could be reassured on that point, I should be perfectly happy.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if there is such a thing as an over-zealous officer, he is already constrained by the provisions of this clause as I have described them.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 22, line 1, after ("computer") insert ("or any other electronic form").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was tabled in Committee but not moved. I move it now in order to see whether or not, in the opinion of the noble Baroness, the words:
"or any other electronic form",
are necessary. If they are necessary, it would be on the basis of provision for possible changes in technology and so on. In order to ascertain the necessity or otherwise of the amendment, I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that enforcement officers should have access to the information they need to make investigations and perform their duties whether it is stored on paper or on electronic or automated systems.
However, I am confident his concerns are already met. The term "computer" appears in other legislation such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to embrace other electronic systems too. There is therefore every reason to suppose that the expression will serve equally well in the Food Safety Bill. Even if we felt a need to put the matter beyond any conceivable doubt by amending the Bill there would be a need to avoid a knock-on effect on other legislation. Similar provisions to Clause 32(6) would have to be rewritten in all other enactments or there would be a needless doubt raised as to whether their scope was broad enough.
More important than that objection is the considerable risk that a list of other systems would be incomplete. Mr. Babbage's differentiating engine was not electronic but was a computer. We cannot tell what forms of information storage there will be in the future. Certainly they are not likely to be restricted to electronic forms. They might well be light activated. The essential elements of computer systems are: (a) the storage of data; (b) the retrieval of data; and (c) the manipulation of data. Those are not dependent on the form. I hope that that explanation fully satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I should remind the House that if this amendment is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 94.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 22, line 6, leave out ("manufacturing process or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, tabled an identical amendment in Committee I agreed to take away the matter and give it further careful consideration. Having done so, I am now happy to bring it back as a government amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, nothing is more flattering than to have one's own amendment regurgitated from the Government Front Bench. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this amendment in her name and I can do nothing but support her.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I believe that this is quite disgraceful. It is very unfortunate. I think that my noble friend, with whom I had a long discussion on this very issue, might at least have told us the reason for the amendment. I should like a long explanation. I hope that the House will agree to that. I should like then to say why I object to what she is going to say.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the mover of the amendment, I believe I am entitled to speak again. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the background. As drafted, Clause 32(7) makes an enforcement officer guilty of an offence if he discloses information which he has obtained on commercial premises about any manufacturing process or trade secret other than in the course of his duty.
The amendment would lift the restriction in relation to manufacturing processes but retain it in relation to trade secrets. It would continue to cover any manufacturing processes which are themselves trade secrets.
As I said at Committee stage, I am not aware that the form of words in the Bill, which also appeared in the Food Act 1984, has ever caused problems in the past. Indeed, there are ample precedents in other legislation both for the form of words in the Bill as drafted and for the amendment. However, in view of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I see no reason not to make this change. I am assured that trade secrets, including secret processes, will continue to be given the necessary degree of protection, and the penalties for improper disclosure will remain, but not where disclosure is essential to protect public health.
I believe this amendment will help ensure that relevant information about food safety can be made available and will avoid any possibility of needless secrecy. I would not have upset my noble friend for the world. I hope he is satisfied with that full explanation.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am afraid I am not. A manufacturing process might well constitute commercially sensitive information which it is not appropriate to disclose. Examples would be the development of less labour-intensive methods for doing standard tasks or better engineered or more effective methods of such tasks as sorting and grading of raw materials. Such matters could not be seen as trade secrets and there is a need for commercial confidentiality.
If Bills and Acts have blurred this issue one needs to examine exactly why and which ones they are because there is a substantial difference. I had a long discussion with manufacturers of biscuits, cakes and
1222
confectionery who offered to tell my noble friend exactly why a manufacturing process is not covered by the term "trade secret". That is a fundamental point which I do not honestly think she has hoisted in. Perhaps she would agree to my arranging for expert people to point out to her why this matters.
When we discussed this matter we tried to find a way to meet the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, but there was not a way. Why the terms "manufacturing process" and "trade secret" cannot be accepted as being different, as they always have in the past, I cannot understand. I hope my noble friend will think again about this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 cannot be moved.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Time limit for prosecutions]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 22, line 41, at end insert ("; and

(c) unless there has been served on the person charged a notice in writing of the date and nature of the offence alleged, such notice to be served before the expiration of the period of thirty days beginning with the date when evidence which the person proposing to institute the proceedings considers is sufficient to justify a prosecution for the offence came to his knowledge.

(2) Such a notice as is mentioned in subsection 1(c) above may be served on any person either by serving it on him personally or by sending it to him by post at his usual or last known residence or place of business in the United Kingdom or, in the case of a company, at the company's registered office.
(3) For the purposes of subsection 1(c) above —

(a) a certificate of a person who institutes proceedings for an offence mentioned in that subsection which states that evidence came to his knowledge on a particular date shall be conclusive evidence of that fact; and

(b) a document purporting to be a certificate of such a person and to be signed by him or on his behalf shall be presumed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should remind your Lordships that we discussed the substance of this matter during our earlier proceedings. Again I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I am grateful for her letter.
I have to accept the argument of time limits which we discussed earlier and which, she reminded me in her letter, were set down in the Bill. The problem is that an enforcement authority may not inform a potential defendant until many months or perhaps a year or two after the authority has learnt about a possible infringement. I suggest this creates a little unease.
I therefore decided that it might be better to approach the matter in a different way. With help from the Retail Consortium, which is very worried about this, I have lifted the relevant parts of Section 83(3) of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. In essence, that section provides that proceedings for an offence under specified parts of that Act shall not be instituted unless a notice has been served on the person charged. Such a requirement forewarns the proprietor that an allegation is being investigated

1223
and it enables him to start his own in-house investigation while events are reasonably fresh in his mind.
If several months or a year or so elapse before proceedings are instituted, the relevant facts concerning the potential or actual defendant would have been put in place. As the Bill is currently drafted, there is no obligation on an enforcement officer to take action as soon as he becomes aware, or his attention is drawn to, or he is alerted to the fact that an offence may be committed or may have been committed. He could sit on that knowledge, which may or may not be evidence at some later time, for months, 12 months or more, before he takes any action. That seems to be the wrong way of going about the matter. Hence, before your Lordships is Amendment No. 95 which in essence replaces Section 83 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 which has stood the test of time. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this amendment seeks to give a special protection to food manufacturers, importers and sellers. I find it difficult to find any justification for such special treatment. The effect would be to require enforcement authorities to serve notices on the defendant within 30 days of having evidence of the alleged offence, and to bar them from prosecuting if that notice had not been served. A provision of this sort would be most unusual.
There is a notice procedure for traffic offences. But traffic offences, of their very nature, are such that it is not easy to recollect the circumstances of the occasion unless there is an actual accident. My noble friend mentioned the Weights and Measures Act 1985. There is also a notice procedure in that Act. However, proceedings under that Act are likely to follow testing for such matters as short measures. While that is very important, it is certainly different from situations covered by this Bill, where the sale of unfit food can result in serious illness or even death.
This amendment would be a quite unwarranted restriction on enforcement authorities. It is also of interest to note that the Trade Descriptions Act and the Consumer Protection Act contain no such provision. It may be that my noble friend is concerned that there might be unwarranted delay in bringing cases to court. If that is so I point out that serving such a notice will not necessarily speed up proceedings. In view of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for the explanation which, frankly, I have to reject, I must point out that I am not making a plea for special treatment. I am not concerned one little jot about traffic offences. We are not talking about traffic offences, but about food safety and the prosecution of those who may or may not offend against the legislation currently before your Lordships. It is not at all a question of speeding up anything. The amendment is giving some justice, repeated in the Weights and Measures Act 1985, to a potential offender.
1224
In a matter as serious as this it seems totally unreasonable not to give some justice. The noble Baroness underlined the seriousness of the Bill before us. The amendment is to give a man a reasonable chance within 30 days of assessing the facts that may lead to a prosecution. At this time of the night, all I can do is press the matter to a Division and, I suspect, bring the proceedings to a halt. I do not want to do that because we want to complete the Report stage of the Bill today. I have to tell my noble friend that I do not find her explanation satisfactory. I shall consider it with those who help me in these matters and in all probability will return to the subject at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Punishment of offences]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("the statutory maximum") and insert ("a fine not exceeding the appropriate level on the standard scale, which shall not in any case exceed the statutory maximum").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are advised that at present all offences under the food hygiene regulations and other related measures are punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £2,000. This means that the same maximum fine applies to trivial offences, such as the failure to keep a nail brush by a wash basin, as to major offences, such as failing to prevent pest infestation in a food room. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce flexibility to enable different maximum fines to be fixed for different offences so that the punishment can relate to the offence itself rather than be rigid in its effect. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must resist the amendment. Noble Lords will see that the Bill already provides a maximum fine of £2,000 in respect of all either way offences which are not those falling within Clauses 7, 8 or 14. I should stress that this is a maximum amount. There is no reason why courts should not award lesser amounts where the offence is less serious. I rarely believe in personalising things, but speaking as a former magistrate, I can say that very seldom is the maximum penalty imposed. I hope the noble Lord will see that the amendment is unnecessary and that he will be willing to withdraw it.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Appeals to magistrates' court or sheriff]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 23, line 43, leave out ("to a magistrates' court or in Scotland, to the sheriff—) and insert —

("(i) to the chief officer of the relevant enforcement authority; or

(ii) to a magistrates' court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 97 perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 98 and 100. In speaking to Amendment No. 97, I have to say that the interpretation of the food hygiene general regulations is considered by many persons to be a somewhat inexact science. An example is the regulations requiring floor coverings in food rooms to be smooth and impervious. Interpretations differ as to what this means in practice. Some experts accept, for example, that quarry tiles provide a hygienic surface, while others say that the narrow gaps between them give rise to risks.
Clause 37 seeks to recognise this by providing a means of appealing against an improvement notice and certain other decisions. However, the only means of appeal envisaged is an appeal to a magistrates' court. We are told that many issues could in fact be resolved by discussion between the proprietor of the food business and senior staff of the enforcement authority without the need to take up the valuable time of a magistrates' court.
Amendment No. 98 is a consequential amendment which would mean that an appeal to the enforcement authority would have to be lodged, considered and decided within 14 days of the date of issue of the improvement notice. In the event that the plaintiff is still not satisfied, this time-scale would still enable him to appeal to a magistrates' court within the time limit of 21 days laid down in subsection (5). The amendment to subsection (5) is itself consequential. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, improvement notices serviced under Clause 10 are issued by appropriate officers who are authorised by the enforcement authority. Any action by the officer concerned must therefore be deemed to be with the approval of the authority. In some authorities these decisions are taken only by senior officers. If the authority is small, the appeal envisaged by the amendment might end up being made to the same officer who made the original decision. That surely cannot be right. The proper procedure for any appeal is to the magistrates' court or, in the case of Scotland, to the sheriff. That secures the independence of the procedure. It has to be fair and we believe that it has to be seen to be fair. I hope in view of that explanation that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that response. The situation as envisaged here was one in which the authority was large enough to have a chief officer who would himself be independent of the officer who raised the matter in the first place. It would certainly not be appropriate for a small authority to have the same officer acting by way of appeal as had originally issued the notice.
The thinking behind the amendment was that in certain cases the magistrates' court, or in Scotland the sheriff's court, could be relieved of a good deal of litigation if some form of internal appeal were possible. I note what the noble Baroness said about the nature of the appeal standing in the name of the authority in question. I shall take account of that
1226
when I study her remarks. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
11 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 24, line 9, leave out ("time") and insert ("period").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 99 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 103. The purpose of these amendments is to standardise the wording used throughout the Bill. Your Lordships will note that at present a length of time is described as a "period" in Clause 10 and as "time" in Clause 37. There is no reason for that difference in wording and these amendments rectify the position.
I hope in the light of that explanation that the House will agree to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 24, line 10, leave out ("21 days") and insert ("(a) one month").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment extends from 21 days to one month the period within which an appeal against certain decisions of an enforcement authority may be brought. The decisions which are affected are those to refuse to issue a certificate lifting a prohibition order under Clause 11 or an emergency prohibition order under Clause 12; any decision to refuse, cancel, suspend or revoke a licence required by regulations made under Clause 19 and, subject to a further amendment which I hope I shall be moving shortly, decisions to serve an improvement notice under Clause 10.
Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that similar appeals against decisions of the enforcement authorities under the Food Act 1984 must be brought within a period of 21 days. However, in Scotland the existing legislation (which is the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956) provides that the appeals may be brought within a period of one month. We are now aligning the legislation for England, Wales and Scotland, and on further consideration it seemed to us to be unreasonable to shorten the period in Scotland in comparison to the existing legislation when making this alignment. We have judged it preferable to lengthen the period in England —and lengthening the period would obviously be of benefit to some appellants.
I believe that this is a straightforward change and, accordingly, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 24, line 11, after ("appeal") insert ("or
(b) in the case of an appeal under subsection (1)(a) above, that period or the period specified in the improvement notice, whichever ends the earlier").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104.
These amendments clarify the provisions of the Bill on appeals against improvement notices. During the debates in Committee, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth suggested that the Bill ought to provide for compensation to be payable to the owner of a food business who complied with an improvement notice and whose appeal against that notice was subsequently successful. When we were considering what my noble friend said, we recognised that the Bill provides the possibility for someone to commit an offence by not having complied with an improvement notice, and subsequently to appeal against that notice within the time limits laid down within the legislation. This situation is obviously undesirable and the amendments have been tabled in order to overcome that undesirability. Therefore I trust that they are acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the outcome of the undertaking she gave at an earlier stage to consider the matter and for putting down these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 24, line 19, leave out ("time") and insert ("period").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 104:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:—
("Appeals against improvement notices
(" . —(1) On an appeal against an improvement notice, the court may either cancel or affirm the notice and, if it affirms it, may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as the court may in the circumstances think fit.
(2) Where, apart from this subsection, any period specified in an improvement notice would include any day on which an appeal against that notice is pending, that day shall be excluded from that period.
(3) An appeal shall be regarded as pending for the purposes of subsection (2) above until it is finally disposed of, is withdrawn or is struck out for want of prosecution.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power to issue codes of practice]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 24, line 44, at end insert —
("(4) Before issuing any code under this section, the Ministers or the Minister shall consult with such organisations as appear to them or him to be representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the code.
(5) Any consultation undertaken before the commencement of subsection (4) above shall be as effective, for the purposes of that subsection, as if undertaken after that commencement.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has been prompted by the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for consultation on codes of practice under this clause. I agree that it would be helpful to ensure that Ministers
1228
consult appropriate representative organisations before issuing codes of practice. This amendment would ensure that Ministers had a duty to do so. It follows the wording of the provisions for consultation now included in Clause 26(5). It is also included in the amendment to ensure that all such consultation is valid, even if begun before the Act is fully in force. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this amendment which picks up a point that was raised by a number of noble Lords in Committee as to the consultation procedure before the codes of practice are issued. The Government have now accepted the case that codes for the guidance of food authorities, which will be crucial to the success of the legislation, should be discussed with the organisations concerned beforehand. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out a commitment to consult the local authority associations specifically because these will be the people most closely involved.
I shall have to read out the next sentence most carefully to the Minister. It would also be helpful to have an indication of the circumstances in which the provisions of the new subsection (5), whereby consultation having effect before the coming into force of the new subsection will also be effective for this purpose, will have effect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Regulations as to charges]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 26, line 18, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended moving a similar amendment at Committee stage but unfortunately I did not. Amendment No. 106 is a probing amendment. I wish to find out from the Minister the kind of enforcement activities the Government envisage for which food businesses will be required to pay. Is it right that the food business, whether it is manufacturing or retailing, should pay for the enforcement of the Bill? One might ask, is industry henceforth to pay fees for any and every enforcement activity covered by this or any other kind of Bill? Come to think of it, perhaps one might ask whether this provision in the Bill is the precursor of any enforcement activity which might fatten the weights and measures offices or the trading standards service preparatory to self-financing ready for privatisation or for conversion into a self-financing agency.
Seriously, I recognise that subsection (4) provides that,
"a charge may not exceed a maximum amount, or be less than a minimum amount".
The subsection goes on in paragraphs (a) and (b) to make various provisions. I noted that on the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill in 1987 when we were discussing permitted charges the Government at that time said that they would introduce a monitoring service to ensure that charges that were to be made were relevant to the business,

1229
as it were, of that Act of Parliament. I should like to be reassured that notwithstanding Clause 44(4) the Government have in mind that charges will be germane to the real matters that the Bill focuses attention on and that local authorities will not have a free hand in making charges for any enforcement activity. It is in a spirit of inquiry that I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this amendment appears to question whether the scope of Clause 44 is perhaps too broad. The power to charge under food legislation is not new. Such powers already exist under Parts I and II of the Food Act 1984 and in Scottish legislation. However, the existing powers are subsidiary to the main regulation-making power, whereas Clause 44 would give a self-standing power. The new power would be wider as well as more comprehensive and flexible.
I can, however, assure my noble friend that we do not intend to make any radically different use of this power and we fully intend that enforcement authorities will continue to provide most of their services free of charge. Enforcement authorities already charge for some of their services, such as the export certification of meat, and the Bill must of course include a power that will allow this to continue.
Clause 44 would also be used to enable local authorities to charge for training courses on food hygiene. This is desirable, as the provision of training courses is a task undertaken by environmental health officers which is subsidiary to their main job of enforcing food law. It is right that such subsidiary tasks should wherever possible be self-financing. We also need the clause to allow continuation of the ministry charges for milk and dairies inspections and to allow such charges to be differentiated according to herd size. Differentiation was recommended by the efficiency scrutiny and the principle is supported by industry. Moreover, it might be right to levy charges to cover the cost of issuing licences under Clause 19. The powers need to be widely drawn to cater for such eventualities. However, as my noble friend Lady Hooper made clear on Second Reading, we do not envisage charges for registration of food premises.
I hope that the House will agree that Clause 44 contains a necessary power that Ministers will be able to use to allow charging in reasonable cases and at sensible rates. I commend this clause as a useful and flexible part of the Bill's provisions for enforcement. I hope that for once I have been able to satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that that is rather unkind because in Committee and earlier today my noble friend the Minister has satisfied me on a number of points which have been raised. On this occasion she reassures me but she does not totally satisfy me because the provision gives enormous scope, some of which she has outlined. I am however a little reassured by the words: "Ministers may make regulations". Presumably they will come before both Houses of Parliament so that if we feel that the scope is being
1230
somewhat exceeded there may be half a chance to do something about it.
I thank my noble friend for her assurances on these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Regulations and orders]:
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 27, line 19, at end insert—
("(2) Any power of the Ministers or the Minister to make regulations or orders under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(3) Any statutory instrument containing —

(a) regulations under this Act;

(b) an order under this Act other than an order under section 59(3) below; or

(c) an Order in Council under section 57 below,

shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) Before making —

(a) any regulations under this Act, other than regulations under section 17(2) or 18(1)(b) above; or

(b) any order under Part I of this Act,

the Ministers shall consult with such organisations as appear to them to be representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the regulations or order.
(5) Any consultation undertaken before the commencement of subsection (4) above shall be as effective, for the purposes of that subsection, as if undertaken after that commencement.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Statutory Instruments]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 27, line 23, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 108 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 109. We on these Benches would much prefer to see as much detail as possible on important matters. We consider irradiation of foodstuffs to be a very important matter, although there may be a difference between us and the noble Baroness and her department on the degree of importance that one attaches to the irradiation of food. If it is not agreed that the detail should be included on the face of the Bill the least we should ask for is that it should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of your Lordships' House rather than the negative resolution procedure.
We know that the Government do not like the time that is taken up by the affirmative resolution procedure, and we appreciate the difficulties that the Government face with the shortage of time for their legislative programme. However, we feel that in such an important matter as this the public will expect at least the opportunity to discuss the matters as openly and fully as possible. I suggest that the affirmative resolution procedure is the most suitable. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, having added my name to the amendment I should say a few words in

1231
support of it. By any standards irradiation will be an important question. The very fact that it is important in my opinion justifies the use of the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure which is to apply to all other regulations made under the Bill.
We have the opportunity to pray against the regulations if the amendment is rejected. Some of us are better at prayer than others. A Scottish minister of religion told me that the anagram for "best in prayer" is "Presbyterian" whereas the anagram for "Episcopal" is "Pepsi Cola". I believe that there should be an affirmative resolution in this instance. If the Government's case is as strong as the Minister makes it out to be, an affirmative resolution should sail through both Houses of Parliament quite easily. I support the amendment.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must begin by saying that I endorse the view that on matters of public interest, such as food irradiation, there must be full scrutiny of Government proposals. However, I do not believe that use of the affirmative resolution procedure is the way to ensure that. As the Committee on Delegated Legislation explained in its 1973 report, negative procedure should be the norm. Affirmative resolution should only be used for three types of powers: those substantially affecting Acts of Parliament; those having significant financial effects, for example imposing a new tax; and those involving considerations of special importance, for example, creating a new type of serious criminal offence.
In this context it is perhaps significant that existing powers to control food irradiation are subject only to annulment procedure. There have already been three statutory instruments concerning food irradiation, the first made as long ago as 1967 (references 1967 No. 385, 1969 No. 1039 and 1972 No. 205). All were made by negative resolution under the Food and Drugs Act 1955 which has since been consolidated into the Food Act 1984. That is also the right approach for this new Act. Of course, if certain regulations such as those on irradiation are felt to merit a debate, such regulations could be prayed against and debated as if the affirmative procedure had been followed. I recognise that by convention your Lordships' House does not vote on such regualtions, but then we do not vote on affirmative resolution regulations either. However, if people feel very strongly, there can be a vote against a negative resolution regulation in another place.
I must emphasise that there is no chance of important proposals slipping through unnoticed if we provide for negative resolution procedure. Clause 26 requires public consultation on any regulations relating to irradiation. When such regulations are laid, they are published and appear on the House of Lords Order Papers. Noble Lords are aware of course that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments scrutinises orders and regulations most carefully and will draw the House's attention to orders or regulations if necessary.
1232
The key point is that we shall consult on any regulations relating to irradiation. That is by far the best way to take account of the views of interested parties. It means that adjustments can be made to draft regulations rather than the simple "yes" or "no" involved in affirmative resolution procedure. That ends the third lesson for this evening.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I cannot say that I understood very much of it, but I shall read it tomorrow and I dare say that everything will become clear. Obviously, we are disappointed that we cannot take the measure that I proposed in the amendment and I dare say that the matter will be taken further in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 110:
Leave out Clause 48.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [General interpretation]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 30, line 19, at end insert —
(" "labelling", in relation to a food, includes any words, particulars, trade mark, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to the food and appearing on the packaging of the food or on any document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying the food;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is self-explanatory. We discussed the matter in Committee. Although I had not tabled an amendment at that stage, I raised the matter in the clause stand part debate.
The Bill already contains several definitions and our earlier debate appeared to recognise the importance of labelling. Accordingly, it seems appropriate to include a definition of labelling in the Bill. There are so many other definitions set out in the clause. The proposal here is taken from the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 and is derived from the EC labelling directive. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my noble friend raised this point in Committee and, as she knows, we gave the suggestion much careful consideration. Despite the late hour, I am glad to have this opportunity to explain our reasons. The definitions in Clause 53 apply to words or phrases which are being given an unusual or expanded meaning. The concept of labelling in the Bill is the same as that in common usage. That has not led to any difficulties in the past.
The proposed amendment is based on the definition contained in the Food Labelling Regulations 1984, but future EC or domestic

1233
developments could call for a new definition. To have a definition already in place in primary legislation could act as a constraint. I hope that my noble friend will accept my explanation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 114:
Page 31, line 9, at end insert —

("emergency control order

section 13(1)").

Page 31, line 24, at end insert ("(1) and (2)").
Page 31, line 25, at end insert ("(1)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 31, line 27, column 2, leave out ("11(1)") and insert ("11(5)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 31, line 37, at end insert—
("(5) Where, apart from this subsection, any period of less than seven days which is specified in this Act would include any day which is —

(a) a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day or Good Friday; or

(b) a day which is a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of Great Britain concerned,

that day shall be excluded from that period.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Water undertakers]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 32, line 13, leave out from ("to") to end of line 18 and insert ("the supply of water to any premises, whether by a water undertaker or by means of a private supply (within the meaning of Chapter 11 of Part 11 of the Water Act 1989).
(2) In the following provisions of that Act, namely—

section 52 (duties of water undertakers with respect to water quality);

section 53 (regulations for preserving water quality); and

section 64 (additional powers of entry for the purposes of Chapter II),

for the words "domestic purposes", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes".
(3) In subsection (2) of section 56 of that Act (general functions of local authorities in relation to water quality), for the words "domestic purposes" there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes" and for the words "those purposes" there shall be substituted the words "domestic purposes".
(4) In subsection (1) of section 57 of that Act (remedial powers of local authorities in relation to private supplies), for the words "domestic purposes", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes".
(5) In subsection (1) of section 66 of that Act (interpretation etc. of Chapter II), after the definition of "consumer" there shall be inserted the following definition —
" 'food production purposes' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1A) below;".
(6) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection —
"(1A) In this Chapter references to food production purposes are references to the manufacturing, processing, preserving or marketing purposes with respect to food or drink for which water supplied to food production premises may be used; and in this subsection 'food production premises' means premises used for the purposes of a business of preparing food or drink for consumption otherwise than on the premises." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret that this amendment and the proposed new clause covering the corresponding Scottish provision which appears in Amendment No. 118 were put down relatively late in our proceedings. However, I felt that it was proper for your Lordships to have the opportunity to consider them. As presently drafted, Clause 55 excludes water undertakers from the main provisions of the Bill, but not private supplies of water. The clause also empowers Ministers to make an order applying the strictures of the Water Act to water supplied by them to food processing, as well as to domestic premises.
In the light of further consideration, the new clauses change the way in which water is handled in the Food Safety Bill. Our underlying objective is to protect the consumer from contamination that might be introduced into food from water used in its production or preparation.
The amendment and the corresponding Scottish provision, which has the support of my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, therefore amend the Water Act provisions so that the quality standards for domestic water will apply to water used for food production as soon as these clauses come into effect, rather than waiting for regulations to be made. The Water (Scotland) Act dates back to 1980, but it was amended by Schedule 22 to the Water Act 1989.
I should perhaps explain that, so far as private water supplies are concerned, we are planning to do two things which are not apparent from the text of the amendment. First, my colleagues at the Department of the Environment and their equivalent in Scotland are planning regulations under the Water Act to deal with private supplies, the frequency of sampling of such supplies, and so on. However, the Government need to consider and consult on exactly what regulations are appropriate, and this is in hand.
Secondly, we plan complementary regulations under Clause 16 of the Bill to ensure, inter alia, that private supplies do not pose a risk to health in food produced or processed by a manufacturer and that someone is responsible for any health problem that can be traced back to the water used. Among the measures that might be used are periodic tests by food processors. I would emphasise, however, that it is not our wish or our intention to impose needless

1235
burdens on food processors. We will, of course, be consulting fully before bringing forward any regulations. Nevertheless, public health considerations are paramount and we must have an overall system which protects the consumer. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Baroness for the words of explanation she gave in relation to both these amendments. As she has so rightly said, they have been tabled rather late in the proceedings and at a very late hour this evening. We shall not be opposing either of the amendments, but I think it would be only fair to say that we shall need to take advice on the matter and, if it is necessary to come back at Third Reading, I hope the circumstances will be understood by the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 118:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Water supply: Scotland
. —(1) Nothing in Part II of this Act or any regulations or order made under that Part shall apply in relation to the supply of water to any premises, whether by a water authority (within the meaning of section 3 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980) or by means of a private supply (within the meaning of Part VIA of that Act).
(2) In the following provisions of that Act, namely—
section 76A (duties of water authorities with respect to water quality); and
section 76B (regulations for preserving water quality),
for the words "domestic purposes", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes".
(3) In subsection (2) of section 76F of that Act (general functions of local authorities in relation to water quality), for the words "domestic purposes" there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes" and for the words "those purposes" there shall be substituted the words "domestic purposes".
(4) In subsection (1) of section 76G of that Act (remedial powers of local authorities in relation to private supplies), for the words "domestic purposes", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "domestic or food production purposes".
(5) In subsection (1) of section 76L of that Act (interpretation etc. of Part VIA), after the definition of "analyse" there shall be inserted the following definition —
" 'food production purposes' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1A) below;".
(6) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection —
"(1A) In this Part references to food production purposes are references to the manufacturing, processing, preserving or marketing purposes with respect to food or drink for which water supplied to food production premises may be used; and in this subsection 'food production premises' means premises used for the purposes of a business of preparing food or drink for consumption otherwise than on the premises." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions of regulations under section 16(1)]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendments Nos. 119 to 121:
Page 34, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert ("Provision for prohibiting").
Page 34, line 18, leave out ("any disease so specified") and insert (", or which is liable to be suffering or to have suffered from, any disease specified in the regulations").
Page 35, line 45, at end insert —
("Inspection etc. of food sources
7. —(1) Provision for securing the inspection of food sources by authorised officers of enforcement authorities for the purpose of ascertaining whether they —

(a) fail to comply with the requirements of the regulations; or

(b) are such that any food derived from them is likely to fail to comply with those requirements or food safety requirements.

(2) Provision for enabling such an officer, if it appears to him on such an inspection that any food source falls within sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) above, to give notice to the person in charge of the food source that, until a time specified in the notice or until the notice is withdrawn —

(a) no commercial operations are to be carried out with respect to the food source; and

(b) the food source either is not to be removed or is not to be removed except to some place so specified.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 40, line 33, at end insert —
("The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (c.66)
In section 23(4) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (application for new licence), for the words "section 13 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956" there shall be substituted "section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 122 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 123. These technical amendments introduce references to relevant provisions of the Food Safety Bill in certain Scottish legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 41, line 41, at end insert —
("The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c. 45)
In section 39 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (street traders' licences)—

(a) in subsection (3)(b), for the words "section 7 of the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act 1914" there shall be substituted the words "regulations made under section 19 of the Food Safety Act 1990"; and

(b) in subsection (4)—

(i) for the words "regulations made under sections 13 and 56 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956", there shall be substituted the words "section 1(3) of the Food Safety Act 1990";

(ii) for the words "islands or district council" there shall be substituted the words "food authority (for the purposes of section 5 of the Food Safety Act 1990)"; and

(iii) for the words "sections 13 and 56 of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956", there shall be substituted the words "section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 44, line 32, column 2, leave out ("17(1) and 26(2)") and insert ("and 17(1)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 125 to 132. These are technical amendments to Tables A and B, to insert two references that were omitted and in the interests of simplicity to remove some that are unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 125 to 132:
Page 44, line 33, column 2 leave out ("sections 16(1)(e) and 26(2)(a)") and insert ("section 16(1)(e)").
Page 44, line 45, column 2, leave out ("49") and insert ("49(2)"). Page 44, leave out line 46.
Page 45, line 10, column 2, leave out ("17(1) and 26(2)") and insert ("and 17(1)").
Page 45, line 11, column 2, leave out ("sections 16(1)(e) and 26(2)(a)") and insert ("section 16(1)(e)").
Page 45, line 12, column 2, leave out ("section 16(1)(b)") and insert ("sections 5(6) and 16(1)(b), (c)").
Page 45, line 16, column 2, leave out ("49") and insert ("49(2)").
Page 45, leave out line 17.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before midnight.

  SALMONELLA: INFECTION OF FLOCKS
  SALMONELLA: INFECTION OF FLOCKS
  STUDENTS LIVING AT HOME
  STUDENTS LIVING AT HOME
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, BRUSSELS, 5th FEBRUARY
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, BRUSSELS, 5th FEBRUARY
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN CONVENTION
  RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: UN CONVENTION
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: GOVERNMENT GRANTS
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES: GOVERNMENT GRANTS
  MEDICAL AUDIT
  MEDICAL AUDIT